Fracking is dangerous and it can and has been proven by Patty Pickup, Rocky View County, June 16, 2014, Rocky View Weekly
Re: “Previous fracking letter includes a number of inaccurate facts, letter ” June 2
Dear Editor,
Mr. Meikle has made several disparaging remarks about “inaccuracies” in Mrs. Hawkwood’s letter. I will seek to support her statements and direct readers to the “proof” he requests.
Mr. Meikle claims in his letter that there is no proven instance in the U.S. or Canada where hydraulic fracturing has caused groundwater contamination. There are, in fact, more than 1,000 documented instances of groundwater contamination caused by this process in the U.S. alone. In Alberta, contamination of air and water near Peace River has forced families to leave their homes and farms, and an aquifer near Grande Prairie was contaminated in 2011. A well blowout near Didsbury spread unknown chemicals over farmland. These are only the instances which have reached public awareness. Many landowners have found their air and water to be contaminated, but lack the ability to prove their contentions, since air and water testing in this province is inadequate to deal with the myriad chemicals involved in horizontal fracking.
Mr. Meikle questions the qualifications of the “unknown experts” whom Mrs. Hawkwood has quoted in her letter.
These experts are eminent, highly respected scientists. Does he also question the qualifications of the millions who dispute the safety of this brute force technology? There are numerous bans/moratoriums in countries, provinces, states, towns and cities throughout the world on the same high pressure, multi-stage horizontal hydraulic fracturing presently being used in Rocky View County. Newfoundland, Quebec and Nova Scotia have placed moratoriums on horizontal hydraulic fracturing.
There is a growing body of evidence that chemicals used in horizontal “fracking” are harming public health through release of these chemicals into our air and water. More than 1,000 health professionals and scientists in the U.S. have written to President Obama requesting a ban on horizontal fracking in that country because of devastating health effects.
I would encourage residents and, especially, mothers of Rocky View to do the research that will help them to form a fair and balanced opinion on this subject.
For more information, visit www.frackingcanada.ca
Oil companies optimizing production due to demand by B. Brace, Crossfield, June 9, 2014, Rocky View Weekly
Re: “To frack or not to frack, is there any question?,” Letter, May 20
Dear Editor,
A recent letter to the editor (May 20) attracted my attention for several reasons.
The writer trots out quotes from several experts obviously opposed to hydraulic fracturing. The trouble with that is, for every expert opposed to something, there are always other experts not opposed.
One expert states “The Alberta regulators are only interested in optimizing production.”
Could it be that the regulators and the oil companies are ‘optimizing production’ because of increased demand?
Not surprising considering the number of gas-guzzling SUVs on the roads, not to mention the latest automotive fad – the four-door, four-wheel drive truck.
Do you really need a vehicle that weighs over three tons to go get groceries?
[You sure do when your water is frac’d, unless you run away. Ernst wanted to buy a small car but had to buy a much more expensive truck to be able to haul water (45 minutes one way) after Encana illegally fractured the drinking water aquifers that supply her water well, turning it into a time bomb, with regulator blessings and assisted cover-up, including by Peter Watson, now Chair and CEO of the National Energy Board.]
It’s trendy to bash the oil companies, pipelines and fracking.
For any of your readers who would like more information on fracking, the Alberta Energy Conservation Board has an animated video at www.ercb.ca, and has another website at FracFocus.ca to provide public disclosure of fracturing fluid composition. [Emphasis added]
Previous fracking letter includes a number of inaccurate facts by Monty Meikle, Rocky View County, June 02, 2014, Rocky View Weekly
Re: “To frack or not to frack, is there any question?,” Letter, May 20
Dear Editor,
This letter requires a response due to the inaccuracies stated by Nielle Hawkwood. As I have said before I have over 40 years experience designing, organizing and supervising hydraulic fracturing all over the world. First of all there has been no proven instance in the U.S. or Canada where hydraulic fracturing has caused groundwater contamination. If anyone has proof of such an incident, I would like to hear about it. To respond to Hawkwood’s claims:
1. “Hydraulic stimulation of vertical wells is different from that of horizontal wells.” Not true. I have done hundreds of hydraulic stimulations in both vertical and horizontal wells. The design of the individual stimulations are the same and I can prove it.
2. After a hydraulic stimulation, the well is flowed back. Gas and water are produced. The gas is flared for a short time but this process is strictly controlled by the AER (Alberta Energy Regulators). In cases where homes are located near to the location we use an incinerator, which eliminates any noise, odours or contamination. Water is sent to registered companies for disposal.
3. “Alberta Regulators are only interested in optimizing production.” Not true. All operations carried out by oil and gas companies are controlled by the AER and there are constant inspections by the AER. If you fail an inspection the AER can and do deny the company any more drilling licenses until the situation is rectified. This is a very powerful tool to use against oil and gas companies to ensure that AER regulations are followed.
4. “Hydraulically stimulated wells allows pollutants to travel thousands of feet up to pollute the groundwater.” Companies know the geology from the zone they are stimulating up to groundwater because various logs are run when the well is drilled. The logs tell you exactly the types of rock and the permeability of the rocks from the stimulated zone up to groundwater. It is impossible for stimulation fluids to migrate thousands of feet up through solid rock to pollute groundwater. There has never been an instance of this happening after hundreds of thousands of stimulated wells in the U.S. and Canada.
I could go on and on. People should be aware of proven facts about hydraulic fracturing not unproven statements by unknown experts who rely on conjecture and have no proof.
I can prove what I say. I have over 40 years of proof that hydraulic fracturing is safe. I would be happy to sit down and discuss these issues with any doubters as I have with landowners in the past.
To frack or not to frack, is there any question? by Nielle Hawkwood, Rocky View County, May 19, 2014, Rocky View County
Re: “Residents have access to fracking information,” Letter, May 13
Dear Editor,
Thanks to the oil and gas industry for highlighting the many issues around the horizontal hydraulic fracturing occurring in our backyards. Recent statements, however, require some clarification.
Industry statement: “Fracking has been used in Alberta for more than 60 years.”
Clarification: Until 10 years ago, the “fracking” used in Alberta was vertical fracking. The horizontal fracturing now referred to as “fracking” is a new method using extreme pressures and huge volumes of water and chemicals. Gas and “well effluent” is flared off, creating unknown levels of air pollution.
Industry statement: “Fracking is a safe, proven and government regulated activity.”
Clarification: Dr. John Cherry, hydrologist; chair, Shale Gas Panel, Council of Canadian Academies: “There is no scientific basis for claims that fracking is safe.”
Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, Professor of Engineering and Teaching Fellow, Cornell University, speaking on horizontal fracking: “It was as if (I’d) been working on something (my) whole life and somebody comes and turns it into Frankenstein.”
Dr. Karlis Muehlenbachs, Geochemist, Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta: “The Alberta regulators are only interested in optimizing production.”
Industry Statement: “Underground water supplies and fracturing operations are separated by thousands of meters of impermeable rock.”
Clarification: Our geology is part of the Foothills Disturbed Group. The rock beneath our feet is highly fractured and folded, creating pathways for migration of fracking fluids, heavy metals and radioactive materials into the aquifer.
Dr. Ingraffea: “Since the shale is already naturally fractured, there is no way humans can tell where the fluid will go.”
Industry Statement: “Two layers of steel casing and cement… are used to protect fresh water supplies.”
Clarification: Fracking causes earth tremors and cement cracks. A high percentage of cementing fails within the first few months.
Dr. Ingraffea: “People’s water wells have been contaminated at a significant rate.”
Dr. Muehlenbachs, regarding leaking wells: “The problem is going to get worse, not better.”
Industry Statement: “(Fracking fluid contains) additives used in common household products such as cleaning supplies and shampoo.”
Clarification: Thousands of litres of these chemicals, many of them highly toxic, are used in each well. Would you like to drink shampoo or “cleaning supplies?” [Emphasis added]
Fracking may not be destructive but residents would like access to data by George Forster, Rocky View County, April 28, 2014, Rocky View Weekly
Re: “Longtime oil worker says fracking not destructive,” Letter, April 15.
Dear Editor,
I agree with Monty Meikle when he reviews some of the many benefits brought by petroleum products and it is good to get an insider’s perspective on some of the issues of fracking. For me and perhaps for some other readers of the Rocky View Weekly, there seems to be a lack of verifiable evidence in the discussions about fracking.
Directional drilling and multi-stage stimulations obviously involve a high level of technology and data monitoring. If the public could easily access the data relating to the testing that is done on water wells and air quality before drilling and during and after fracking, there would be much less concern among the affected residents of Rocky View County.
This data of course must include information about the relevant chemicals such as the btex group and injected fracking components such as biocides.
Perhaps Mr. Meikle or another petroleum industry representative can indicate where the public can access this information so that discussions about fracking can be evidence-based and not just hearsay and emotion.
Incidentally, The Alberta Energy Corporation referred to in Mr. Meikle’s article does not seem to exist. Perhaps he meant the Alberta Energy Regulator.
Longtime oil worker says fracking not destructive by Monty Meikle, Rocky View County, April 4, 2014, Rocky View Weekly
Re: “Fracking leads to environmental destruction,” Letter April 8
Dear Editor,
I have worked in the oil and gas industry in Canada and internationally for over 40 years. During that time I have been involved in the design, organization, and supervision of hundreds of hydraulic stimulations (so called fracking). Most of my work today involves multi-stage stimulations in horizontal wells. I average approximately 150 individual fracs per year, the majority of which are in central and southern Alberta often within a few hundred yards of farms and water wells. In my entire career, I have not had one instance of anyone being negatively affected by these operations (ie: contamination of water or ground).
To describe hydraulic stimulations in Alberta as uncontrolled is false. The Alberta Energy Corp. imposes strict guide lines on hydraulic stimulations conducted in Alberta.
To describe hydraulic stimulations as dangerous is false. Of the hundreds of hydraulic stimulations I have carried out, there were no persons injured and no ground or water contamination.
To describe hydraulic stimulation operations as a disaster is false. The hydraulic stimulations I have personally conducted as well as the thousands of stimulations conducted around the world have brought positive results in jobs, energy independence and fuel for your homes, cars, airplanes and ships as well as plastics for your cell phones and flat screen TVs and fertilizer for your crops.
Subject: Request for Rocky View Weekly to remove misleading ad by LIPG
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:58:06 -0600
To: email hidden; JavaScript is required, email hidden; JavaScript is required, email hidden; JavaScript is required, email hidden; JavaScript is required
CC: email hidden; JavaScript is required
Dear Editor,
Please immediately remove this ad in your October 29, 2013 Rocky View Weekly by the LIPG, request that the LIPG publish a correction and apology, and notify me when this is done. If it isn’t done, I will file formal complaints with the Better Business Bureau.
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), before the government changed its name to Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), documented a confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating fresh groundwater near Grand Prairie, Alberta, in September 2011. The ERCB (now AER) lied for over a year about this case, even though testing of regulator monitoring water wells proved the contamination was caused by hydraulic fracturing.
The AER continues to lie and so do industry lobby groups such the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and Lochend Industry Producer’s Group (LIPG), cowardly hiding under the regulator’s dishonest skirts.
Albertans vote loyally for big oil parties, the PCs and Wildrose. The least they deserve in return, is for newspapers to stop running disingenuous ads by industry lobby groups.
More cases of documented contamination may be found in this brief summarizing some regulator and industry research.
Finally, I would appreciate Rocky View Weekly publishing my letter, with links. You and your readers deserve a few industry and regulator facts.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Jessica Ernst
Subject: Request for Cochrane Eagle to remove misleading ad by LIPG
To: email hidden; JavaScript is required ; email hidden; JavaScript is required ; email hidden; JavaScript is required ; email hidden; JavaScript is required
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:41 PM
Dear Editor,
Please remove this full page ad on Page 39 of your October 24, 2013 Cochrane Eagle by the LIPG, request that the LIPG publish a correction and apology, and notify me when this is done. If it isn’t done, I will file formal complaints with the Better Business Bureau.
Two years ago, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), before the government changed its name to Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), documented a confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating fresh groundwater near Grande Prairie, Alberta, in September 2011. The ERCB (now AER) lied for over a year about this case, even though testing of regulator monitoring water wells proved the contamination was caused by frac’ing.
The AER continues to lie and so do industry lobby groups such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and Lochend Industry Producer’s Group (LIPG), cowardly hiding under the regulator’s dishonest skirts.
Albertans vote loyally for big oil parties, the PCs and Wildrose. The least they deserve in return, is for newspapers to stop running disingenuous ads by industry lobby groups.
For proof by the Alberta Energy Regulator.
More cases of documented contamination may be found in this brief summarizing some regulator and industry research.
Encana reportedly owns holdings in the Viking and Cardium. The following was reported in the Globe and Mail, January 13, 2011:
The company owns more than three million hectares of “fee lands,” on which it holds subsurface rights. ….Encana pays no royalty to the Crown. Instead, it can charge royalties to other companies – a strategy it is now pursuing on lands that lie in some of Western Canada’s most prominent new oil plays, including the Viking, Cardium and Alberta Bakken. Encana has agreed to allow other companies to explore some of its lands in exchange for a royalty of anywhere between 30 and 38 per cent. [Emphasis added]
The evidence gathered by the Alberta Energy Regulator on the Grande Prairie frac contamination case, has nothing to do with my lawsuit against Encana, the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Crown.
Finally, I would appreciate the Cochrane Eagle publishing my letter, with links. You and your readers deserve a few industry and regulator facts. I toured the Lochend and Bearspaw recently and am horrified by what the companies are doing, notably drilling near a community school and their waste dumping.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Jessica Ernst
November 1, 2013
Dear Mr Christianson, Editor
I was informed of this LIPG ad in the Rocky View Weekly
In Sept 2011, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), now Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), documented a confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating fresh groundwater near Grande Prairie, Alberta.
It is appalling that companies are allowed to print such bold faced lies.
Obviously, there are documented cases of contamination. I guess with advertising, though, it’s always “buyer beware”. The only problem is people are not in the business of buying this fracking. It is coming upon an unsuspecting public, whether they want it or not. Both regulators of environment and energy investigated our water well for gas contamination for 7 years, and found thermogenic gases (methane, ethane, propane, butane) and sour gas. They proudly say that they could find no connection to the many oil and gas wells in the area, but the truth is they only investigated 9 of a possible 50+ in the surrounding mile of our water well. Some wells were not tested because they were shut in at the time. Why? Was it convenient to avoid the most likely sources? We can’t answer for their actions but we do have years of proof that industry’s natural gas is entering our water well and may soon contaminate the whole aquifer. How soon will that be the story for the people of Lochend?
The practice of hydraulic fracturing is questionable at best, and destructive to most. To advertise it as if it has good merits is just poor ethics. This is like a criminal posting an ad to extoll that breaking into houses is really a community benefit. Would you print that? Please consider how this reflects on your paper.
Your readers may want to compare the Facts and Fiction. See video presentation at this link.
Sincerely,
Ronalie Campbell
Ponoka AB
Most real fracking data still unavailable to public by George Forster, Rocky View County, June 02, 2014, Rocky View Weekly
Re: “Residents have access to fracking information,” May 13
Dear Editor,
It was gratifying to see Larry Stewart of the Lochend Industry Producers Group responding to my letter of April 29. Mr. Stewart provided useful information about the constituents of fracking fluids and some websites where we can learn more.
Unfortunately, Mr. Stewart missed the point that I was attempting to raise: don’t just tell us that industry practices are not hazardous, show us. I had assumed that as part of due diligence that baseline data would be collected on water and air quality before drilling. I had also assumed that the same tests would be done after well completion. These tests would include relevant chemicals such as the btex group that might exist in the hydrocarbon formation or might be introduced by the drilling and fracking processes. Given all the recent controversy about fracking, I had assumed the LIPG would be leading from in front.
Mr. Stewart indicated that the LIPG companies will test water wells within 400 metres of drill sites if requested. I believe Mr. Stewart was saying that any water wells or surface water beyond 400m will not be tested. One might argue that the 400m radius is more appropriate for the old-technology vertical oil wells but that is another subject entirely.
In my area there is a plan to drill two horizontal bores that will pass almost directly under four water wells, four water springs and three homes. The plan document from the energy company shows the intended surface development but does not include any reference to the water wells or springs.
I understand the concept that in this area horizontal wells are drilled below cap rock and that the undisturbed cap rock must have been impervious for eons since it has trapped the hydrocarbons. What could possibly go wrong? Perhaps removing support from under the cap rock or opening fissures when fracking? I believe the relevant point is not speculating on scenarios. Just show us through test data that problems are not occurring.
Mr. Stewart’s point that water well test data is the property of the landowner should not be any impediment to releasing consolidated and analyzed data for a region. Statistics Canada collects data from individuals but protects their privacy when the data is presented to the public. Surely the talent pool within the LIPG can accomplish the same.
The LIPG states that they have transparency and accountability for their oil and gas operations. They have drilled and fracked a very large number of wells in this area. We are told that this activity is not harmful to our air and water and perhaps that is correct. Where is the supporting data? [Emphasis added]
LIPG (Lochend Industry Producers Group)
Fails to Reveal the Fine Print!
Link Here for the pdf explanatory document
Subject: Re: Request for Rocky View Weekly to remove misleading ad by LIPG
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:10:41 -0600
From: Cam Christianson <email hidden; JavaScript is required>
I received your request to stop running an ad in the Rocky View Weekly. I am sorry but I won’t stop this ad. This ad was booked from a third party agency into our paper which screens all ads. It is our responsibility to not run libellous ads but this ad is not libellous. I am sorry if you have any issue with what they are advertising but it is their rights. I would suggest you contact the LIPG.
Until something has been proven in court we will run ads for this company and any others. It isn’t our companies policy to be the court or the jury. [What about reading regulator contamination investigation reports?]
Thank You
Cameron Christianson
Publisher
Rocky View Publishing
#403-2903 Kingsview Blvd
Airdrie, AB
T4A 0C4
ph: 403-948-1885 ext: 22
cel: 403-669-4849
fax: 403-948-2554
Publishers of Airdrie City View, Rocky View Weekly and Airdrie House and Home
[Reality check:
Theresa Watson was appointed to the ERCB (now AER) Board, from 2009 to June 2013