Ex CEO Encana Gwyn Morgan on the Board of Directors of the Fraser Institute. Gwyn was CEO when the company illegally fractured Rosebud’s drinking water aquifers. Snap below taken October 28, 2015:
The Fraser Institute Board of Directors is a distinguished group of individuals who provide governance of the business and affairs of the Institute.
Managing the Risks of Hydraulic Fracturing: An Update by Kenneth P. Green and Taylor Jackson, October 29, 2015, Fraser Institute
A few of the truth distortions in the Fraser Institute’s frac report (in blue):
Page 1: “But as a recent US Environmental Protection Agency multi-year study found, hydraulic fracturing has not led to systemic impacts on drinking water”
The US EPA actively avoided key frac contamination areas, yet still if one reads the EPA’s report Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources – EPA/600/R-15/047 (PDF) (998 pp, 27 MB, about PDF) at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=244651 and supplemental information by the EPA, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/final_retro_case_study_fact_sheet_6_03_508_km.pdf
they contradict the Fraser Institute statement above so widely published in the press.
The EPA reported on many cases of drinking water contamination caused by frac’ing, including 25 to 36 per cent of water wells contaminated in NE Pennsylvania.
The EPA even reported that companies are fracturing directly into drinking water aquifers, including Encana at Pavillion, Wyoming and Rosebud, Alberta, and that Encana’s Rosebud aquifer frac’ing contaminated water wells with natural gas.
Many states have found contamination cases: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/
Ernst summarized many cases of frac contamination reported by industry and regulators her gas migration paper of June 2013: https://ernstversusencana.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Brief-review-of-threats-to-Canadas-groundwater-from-oil-gas-industrys-methane-migration-and-hydraulic-fracturing-v4.pdf
It has been recently revealed how extensive regulator fraud is in the US to cover-up the many cases of frac contamination of drinking water, including using post-drill data as baseline just like Encana and the regulators do here:
During the 2011 Atgas blowout investigation in Bradford County, Chesapeake Energy was allowed to dismiss their own pre-drill water test results to avoid liability for contaminating a water supply. This simple act by DEP essentially changed the background water quality data for the area, creating an artificial history of drinking water quality.
In the recent report published at Public Herald, we uncovered a total of nine ways that officials at the DEP kept drinking water contamination across Pennsylvania, like the Atgas blowout case, ‘off the books.’
In Delmar Township, Tioga County, we found a single inspector cooked nine of 27 cases, a likely 33% increase in the total number of polluted water supplies. Some of these cases were cooked when the inspector ignored clean pre-drill test results to rule that oil and gas operations were not responsible for water damage. Or, the inspector would use a contaminated post-drill test provided by industry as if it was a pre-drill test.”
And another municipal supply has been directly contaminated by fracturing (Rosebud Alberta, is of course, another): http://publicherald.org/breaking-oil-gas-drilling-impacts-public-drinking-water-supplies-in-potter-county/
Two public drinking water systems have been impacted and at least seven private water supplies contaminated due to ongoing pollution being caused by a natural gas fracking operation of JKLM Energy in Potter County, Pennsylvania.
Page 1: “Risks from exposure to the various air emissions generated by hydraulic fracturing are found to be minimal and manageable.”
How? The AER has no idea what frac chemicals families are forced to breath and in water contamination cases, forced to ingest and bathe in. The AER is lying now, lied when it was the ERCB and when it was the EUB, saying the public and poisoned families can get the chemicals they are abused with, all they have to do is ask.
2012 ERCB Lawyer letter to Ernst: “However, the ERCB does not currently require licensees to provide detailed disclosure of the chemical composition of fracturing fluids.”
2014: Canaries in Coal Mines, Air Monitoring Appeals by David Kattenburg
Bob Willard, Senior advisor at the Alberta Energy Regulator, agreed to speak about current regulations.
David Kattenburg: Why aren’t these things being monitored for in the gases that are coming out from flaring and incineration stacks?
Bob: The long list that you’ve identified would be the responsibility for monitoring of not only the Alberta Energy Regulator, but the Environment department themselves, and I would direct you once again to ESRD for them to identify what their plans are relative to updating those guidelines.
David: I have actually, I’ve tried valiantly I’d say to try to get them to explain to me why they have these guidelines that say all industry MUST conform to these guidelines, and then I said well why does directive 60 of the Alberta Energy Regulator only establish monitoring requirements for sulfur dioxide and he said: “speak to the Alberta Energy Regulator.”
Bob: Um, it is important, and this is something the Energy Regulator does lead, is capturing the metrics of the volumes of material, so we do have good metrics as to the volumetrics.
David: But essentially nothing about the composition of those gases, other than sulfur dioxide.
Bob: A totally accurate composition, I would certainly volunteer that no, we do not have a totally accurate comprehensive information on the flare composition rather, we have it for the uh volumes, but not necessarily for the compositions.
2015 04 01: Encana’s too cowardly, uncooperative, arrogant and guilty? to disclose the chemicals the company illegally injected into Rosebud’s drinking water aquifers in 2004, not even in response to the Ernst lawsuit. In Alberta, under court rules, all chemicals including trade secrets must be disclosed in lawsuits.
Page 5: Even here, Long et al. (2015) found “no documented instances of hydraulic fracturing or acid stimulations directly causing ground water contamination in California”
Where were they looking?
Page 7: “Water use for hydraulic fracturing also needs to be considered in the context of other ways we use water, for extraction, processing, and electricity generation for other energy sources….”
A proportion (25% to 100%) of the water used in hydraulic fracturing is not recovered, and consequently this water is lost permanently to re-use, which differs from some other water uses in which water can be recovered and processed for re-use.
Page 8: “As Jackson et al. (2014) describe, many of the causes of well failure are well known, making it easier to address the associated risks. Different shale formations can have different effects on well integrity and failure rates. The local nature of issues suggests that regulation should likely be carried out at the state or provincial level, where specific differences can better be addressed. As Green (2014) points out, jurisdictions might
pursue additional policies to reduce the risk of well failures further. Among them is the creation of for-profit or non-profit third party verification entities that would have to certify that a well was properly drilled and cased before production could commence.”
What enabling researchers around the world keep conveniently ignoring when they pimp “regulation” to fix the oil and gas industry’s notoriously bad practices and endless law violations (with regulators looking the other way, or worse, engaging in fraud altering data and contamination report conclusions), is that failures and mishaps are getting worse.
Besides, industry knew decades ago, that casing leaks are expensive to fix, a big problem and difficult to completely fix even if companies were interested in fixing the leaks. Add to that the cumulatively increasing problems caused by repeat perforating and fracing on already leaking casing that companies are too greedy to try to repair.
Page 8 & 9: “Intrinsik (2014) recommended that companies disclose the small proportion of chemicals used in the fracturing fluid to government and health officials. The disclosed chemical information would be kept confidential in order to protect trade secrets. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) both support chemical disclosure”
Supporting disclosure does not mean companies are disclosing all chemicals used. Companies refuse to disclose their chemicals even in serious drinking water contamination lawsuits with documented evidence of the company violating water protection laws, even after courts order complete disclosure:
Intrinsik was retained by Encana to work on their “Responsible Drilling Program” to formulate less deadly chemicals in frac and drilling fluids but Encana refuses to disclose the chemicals previously used that were highly toxic, and refuses to even disclose their supposedly greened up chemicals in the Ernst lawsuit. Is Encana engaging in more fraud and still injecting the same deadly toxic chemicals they always have? Not even Encana VP Richard Dunn would disclose to Parliamentary Committee what the company’s newly minted more safe or previously toxic chemicals were after Encana’s deadly ones were “swapped out.”
Page 9: “It should come as no surprise that the hydraulic fracturing process results in some air pollutant emissions and as CCA (2014) notes, many of these emissions are the same as those generated by conventional oil and gas production, mining, and other industrial activities.6 But there is a distinction to be made between emissions, exposures, and risk.”
Then why did the AER lie to exposed families and the public about implementing frac regulations while deregulating after poisoned families went public and filed lawsuits for health harms?
Page 10: “The Argonne National Laboratory (Clark et al., 2013) considered the question of leakage and found that the risk can largely be solved by existing, cost-effective technologies. And the assessment report for the government of Quebec (2014) found that the leakage rate for fracked gas production would only be about 3 percent, considerably lower than estimates cited by environmental groups.
Page 1: “While hydraulic fracturing can cause increased seismic activity, the tremors generated by the process are often very small—undetectable at the earth’s surface. When compared with other industries such as mining and conventional oil and gas extraction, the magnitudes and incidences of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing are quite minimal.”
Page 13: “While it is true that hydraulic fracturing can cause earthquakes per se, the resulting induced seismicity is often a magnitude that cannot be felt by humans, and the number of earthquakes is quite small….”
2015 10 11: Cushing, Oklahoma: 4.5M earthquake ignores newly imposed frac quake prevention rules
Fraser Institute News Release: Excessive Concerns Over Fracking-Related Seismic Activity, Water Contamination Not Supported by Research Press Release by Fraser Institute, October 29, 2015 05:30 ET
CALGARY, ALBERTA–(Marketwired – Oct. 29, 2015) – The risks of hydraulic fracturing — the practice of injecting sand, water, and a relatively small quantity of chemicals deep underground at high pressures to extract fossil fuels — are readily manageable with existing technologies and best practices, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
The study, Managing the Risks of Hydraulic Fracturing: An Update, builds on a 2014 Fraser Institute report providing a comprehensive IS FRAUDULENT MORE ACCURATE? analysis of the latest government and academic research about hydraulic fracturing (sometimes referred to as ‘fracking’).
“Canada has tremendous potential to produce oil and gas from shale using hydraulic fracturing. Regrettably, unsubstantiated fears have resulted in fracking bans in several provinces, preventing the extraction of resources that could generate significant wealth, employment and prosperity for Canadians,” said Kenneth Green, senior director with the Centre for Natural Resource Studies at the Fraser Institute.
While there are risks associated with any type resource extraction, the study finds that the risks associated with fracking are manageable and do not justify outright bans.
For example, risks involving water are often at the centre of the debate over fracking: Those opposed to the practice argue that, because it involves injecting chemicals into the ground, there’s a potential that it could contaminate nearby drinking water.
But a multi-year major study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, released earlier this year, found “no evidence” that fracking had led to “widespread systematic impacts on water resources in the United States.”
“In the small number of isolated instances where there was contamination, poorly constructed water wells or improper handling of wastewater were often to blame,” Green said.
The study also spotlights the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and air quality.
Again, the research from respected sources suggests that those concerns may be overblown. A 2014 report commissioned by the B.C. Ministry of Health concluded that the potential for adverse health effects in relation to oil and gas air emissions, including emissions from fracturing in northeastern British Columbia, was low. The same report noted that the province’s existing regulatory framework is “extensive and broadly protective of human health.”
Finally, regarding earthquakes — the new rallying-cry for anti-fracking activists — the study notes that, while hydraulic fracturing can cause some seismic activity, the vast majority of earthquakes are of such low magnitude, they are barely noticeable.
Moreover, the number of earthquakes caused by fracking is much lower relative to other resource extraction methods including mining and oil and gas field depletion.
“Canada already has robust regulatory process that covers the entire range of hydraulic fracturing processes at both the federal and provincial level,” Green said.
“While more research into the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing is needed, bans against the fracking are not justifiable when you look at the latest research.”
[Reality check:
…
CONTACT INFORMATION
Media Contact:
Dr. Kenneth P. Green
Senior Director, Natural Resource Studies
Fraser Institute
For interviews with Dr. Green, please contact:
Aanand Radia
Media Relations Specialist, Fraser Institute
Tel: (416) 363-6575 Ext. 238
E-mail: email hidden; JavaScript is required
[NO WONDER MARKETWIRED WILL NO LONGER ALLOW ERNST VS ENCANA TO PAY FOR THEIR PRESS RELEASE SERVICE! IS IT TOO DANGEROUS WHEN CITIZENS HIRE MARKETWIRED TO PUBLISH THE TRUTH?
REALITY OF THE FREE MARKET IN ALBERTA:
In 2013, after Ernst paid Market Wired (AER used Market Wired for their Media Stunt above) $6,000.00 for one press release, her lawyers were told by phone and email that Ernst is no longer allowed to pay for Market Wired’s services, except if she resolves her case or is no longer an individual:
|
Subject: |
FW: Non-class action lawsuit releases – Klippensteins |
| Date: | Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:41:18 -0500 |
| From: | Tracy Allardyce <email hidden; JavaScript is required> |
| To: | email hidden; JavaScript is required <email hidden; JavaScript is required> |
Hi Cory,
Please see below as discussed.
Thanks again
Tracy
TRACY (AU) ALLARDYCE
ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE
O: 416.342.8646 | C: 416.560.6208 | F: 416.362.5477
E: email hidden; JavaScript is required | www.marketwire.com
From: Christopher Killoran
Sent: January-24-13 9:47 AM
To: Tracy Allardyce
Subject: RE: Non-class action lawsuit releases – Klippensteins
Lawsuits (Non-Class Action)
- We do not send out releases about lawsuits on behalf of an individual against a corporation.
- A law firm can distribute news about an individual case that has been resolved.
- Private and public companies always have the right to put out news releases about lawsuits they are currently involved in.
- No slanderous content allowed.
- Canada Majority Shareholders releases – Canadian law dictates that majority lawsuit releases have to be distributed.
- We will allow releases related to arbitration cases.
Class Action
- No repetitive sends of essentially the same release.
- The only time it is okay to send out more than one release on the same lawsuit is if there has been a meaningful development that is newsworthy and material to the release (e.g. a judgment handed down; damages awarded; case appealed; file date changed; etc.)
- If an issuer tries to circumvent this rule by issuing the same release with multiple vendors (MW, BW, PRN) or by tweaking the subject line or text of the release, then they risk being barred completely from Yahoo!.
- The key is a release must be newsworthy and must not be redundant with a release already sent.
- If an issuer wants to distribute a modified version of a previous class action release with a material/newsworthy change in it, the headline must be different from the original
- The ratio of “news value” to “solicitation factor” must be high.
- It is okay for there to be a discreet solicitation (e.g. phone number to call; web site link to sign up), but it must be a relatively small portion of the release and should be towards the end of the release.
- The name of the court the lawsuit has been filed in should be in the first paragraph of the release.
- A case number must be provided to Marketwire but does not need to be included in the release.
- Because of the high news content requirement, only one lawsuit is allowed per release; we do not allow multiple lawsuits to be mentioned in the same release.
- Multiple companies can only be mentioned in the same release if they are part of the same class action lawsuit.
- The source of the release must be the law firm issuing the release.
- The law firm must be in the headline of the release.
- It is recommended, but not required, that the client use the name of the company being sued in the headline.
- Marketwire does not run lawsuit releases on behalf of individuals. (e.g. A release about Molly Jones suing Company Y for wrongful termination.)
______________________
Chris Killoran [? Related to Maureen Killoran, lawyer representing Encana in the Ernst vs Encana lawsuit?]
Editorial Manager, Central and Western Canada
T: 416.362.0885 or Toll Free: 1.888.299.0338
UK: +44 (0) 20 7220 4500
F: 416.362.9693 or Toll Free: 1.800.463.0136
E: email hidden; JavaScript is required
25 York Street
Suite 900, P.O. Box 403
Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2V5
***
IF THE ABOVE EVIDENCE COUNTERING THE MANY FRAC ABUSE & FRAUD ENABLERS ISN’T ENOUGH:
2012 11 08: B.C. gas-well health study by Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc. called into question
2014 07 14: There are proven cases of frac’ing contamination
Re: “Documented cases of fracking contamination are not proven” June 23
There are proven cases documented and industry admits they don’t know what their frac’s do.
1987 Report to Congress: Kaiser frac’d about 4,000 feet deep “allowing migration of fracture fluid from the gas well to Mr. Parson’s water well. This fracture fluid, along with natural gas was present in Mr. Parson’s water rendering it unusable.”
1989 Industry: “hydraulic fracturing stimulation” for light oil, in several wells in Manitoba propagated into a water zone.
2001, 2004 Groundwater Database entries: Gas wells 02-06-04 perforations at 100.5 metres, 05-14-27-22-W4M intentionally fractured Rosebud’s drinking water aquifers.
2005 – Current: “Oil wells on the Campbell property have caused gas from 1,757 metres to enter their aquifer,” said Muehlenbachs
2005/06 Industry: “….industry still has much to learn about hydraulic fractures. Fractures from both horizontal and vertical wells can propagate vertically out of the intended zone, … potentially connecting up with other hydraulic fracturing stages or unwanted water or gas intervals.”
2006 Regulator: “Information provided by industry to date shows that there may not always be a complete understanding of fracture propagation at shallow depths and that programs are not always subject to rigorous engineering design.”
2008 Industry: “We Can Safely Say That We Know Everything There Is To Know About Hydraulically Created Fractures EXCEPT How Deeply They Penetrate; Their Vertical Extents; Their Symmetries About the Wellbore; Whether They Are Planar or Multi-stranded; Their Geometries At The Perimeter; Which Directions They Go; What Their Conductivities Are”
2010 Regulator: “Fracture propagation via large scale hydraulic fracturing operations has proven difficult to predict. Existing planes of weakness in target formations may result in fracture lengths that exceed initial design expectations.”
2012 Regulator: “High-Risk Enforcement Action against Crew Energy Ltd.” for a frac incident that contaminated groundwater. “The concentrations of chloride…remains elevated. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) concentrations remained unchanged….”
Mr. Meikle’s letter: “Again when oil companies are going to hydraulically stimulate wells, they test all surrounding water wells for water quality and production rate.”
In my experience, companies refuse to do this, don’t test for all chemicals used on the few wells they do test and refuse complete chemical disclosure before drilling, preventing appropriate testing. And after a community’s water is contaminated and water tower explodes, Alberta regulators argue in court they owe ‘no duty of care’ to anyone harmed by industry’s contamination.
Mr. Meikle’s letter: “All chemicals used in fracking have to be reported to the AER.”
Not according to the regulator’s General Counsel: “the ERCB does not currently require licensees to provide detailed disclosure of the chemical composition of fracturing fluids.”
I asked what chemicals were injected in my community’s aquifers. Encana and the regulators refuse to cooperate.
Let’s hope more proof doesn’t involve Mr. Meikle’s water or loved ones. Fighting for accountability, justice and safe water, is an expensive, full-time job.
Jessica Ernst
Rosebud
2011 09 19: University of Calgary Prostitutes Itself To Big Oil & Gas
2014 06 28: “Who wants to be a lab rat?” More Guinea Pig recommendations by Canadian frac “experts,” Potential Socioeconomic Effects of Unconventional Oil and Gas in Nova Scotia Communities
2015 02 16: our governments (and frac panel “experts”) addicted to ‘frack’
2014 07 02: What’s Missing from Canada’s Fracking Debate?
2014 06 14: Sounds like Alberta! Pennsylvania health officials ordered to ignore fracking-related health complaints, Former Department of Health employees say they were forbidden to talk about drilling
2014: Public Advisor on Fracking Filed Fracking Patent
2014 07 17: MUST READ: Dr. Maurice Dusseault, Public Advisor on Council Canadian Academies Frac Panel, Nova Scotia Frac Panel, New Brunswick Energy Institute (that promotes fracing) Filed Frac Patent in 2011; Frac Patent Issued in 2013
2014 07 23: Why are Nova Scotians not demanding that frac patent holder Dr. Maurice Dusseault be removed from the frac panel, his paper where he pushes the Alberta Regulator as model be struck, and a formal apology issued to the public?
2013 04 30: Council of Canadian Academies Expert Frac Report: Provides more questions than answers, Science to be determined after the fracs
2015 06 24: What is Dr. John Cherry Promoting: Science or Propaganda?
2015 04 13: Ontario Minister Natural Resources/Forestry Bill Mauro says “there are currently no applications before the Ministry requesting approval to…use high-volume hydraulic fracturing” but the Ministry hasn’t defined “high volume” so how would he know?
Why was a 2012 Health Canada Report, admitting significant health hazards and risks to groundwater and air from hydraulic fracturing, kept from the public?
Oil companies fracking into drinking water sources, new research shows
Ronalie Campbell comment: At a hearing with a local oil company and government official present, the oil rep blurted out “it wasn’t us, it was Encana, CNRL, and all those others before us that blew the cap rock to hell.”
An Alberta government lawyer argued in court this week that Jessica Ernst’s lawsuit on hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination should be struck down on the grounds that it would open a floodgate of litigation against the province.
“There could be millions or billions of dollars worth of damages,” argued Crown counsel Neil Boyle.
“By any responsible account,” [Pennsylvanian Supreme Court] Chief Justice Castille wrote, “the exploitation of the Marcellus Shale Formation will produce a detrimental effect on the environment, on the people, their children, and the future generations, and potentially on the public purse, perhaps rivaling the environmental effects of coal extraction.”
2012 10 05: Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources A California Perspective
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
Slides from Ernst presentations
etc
etc
etc
Slide from Ernst presentations