Environmental risks from shale gas moving onto the radar for B.C. politicians

While other parts of the world have been raising more and more questions about the role of shale gas in a clean energy economy, the issue has largely flown under the radar in B.C. That may be starting to change, and the province would certainly benefit from some informed discussion that doesn't immediately dismiss concerns or jump to calls for a moratorium.

Last week (May 26), Bob Simpson and Vicki Huntington, B.C.'s two independent MLAs, sent a letter to Premier Christy Clark calling for the province to take a serious look at the  environmental risks associated with shale gas development and the adequacy of B.C.'s approach to regulating that development. They want a Special Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly to investigate the host of good questions that they raised.

Pembina was one of a number of organizations and individuals to support Simpson and Huntington's request. We've been asking similar questions, and in many cases the answers just aren't available.

There's been some media interest in the story (see here, here, and here), and today (May 30), the issue was debated briefly in the legislature (see the draft transcript at the 10:40 a.m. mark here). Bob Simpson starts the discussion by highlighting concerns about the volumes of water used and contaminated in shale gas development, and the global warming pollution that results from shale gas extraction and processing. Of particular note, he makes the point that B.C. does not have an agency with the responsibility to understand the total impacts anticipated from natural gas development.

The MLA for Peace River North, Pat Pimm, offered a disappointingly defensive response. He seemed more concerned that Simpson wasn't from the Peace and that hydraulic fracturing isn't new to British Columbia. Both points are undeniably true, but regrettably, they don't offer a constructive response to Simpson's central concern that the province isn't on top of the potential environmental impacts we could be facing. Pimm does make some good points about the opportunities to reduce reliance on fresh water during hydraulic fracturing, and it's the potential for these opportunities that I would hope Simpson's proposed Standing Committee would address.

So while it is encouraging to see some small snippets of debate about shale gas in our legislature, there are clearly still some big steps to take before the government is adequately addressing the questions underlying its development. Hopefully those steps can be taken quickly.