Evidence of meeting #41 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was water.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Tonks. You got two questions in that time; that's progress.
Monsieur Pomerleau, for up to seven minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank all three of you for the presentation you have given.
Are you okay?
4:55 p.m.
Voices
No.
4:55 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
Okay, there we go.
I didn't understand anything you said.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Okay, I'll translate myself.
My first questions are for you, Mr. Koop. In Quebec, at present, one of the figures that is used most often...
It is okay? Okay.
In British Columbia, they say people are raking in billions of dollars from shale gas. Do you share that opinion? What is your answer?
4:55 p.m.
Coordinator, British Columbia Tap Water Alliance
The government has reported that they've received well over $2 billion in land lease sales. There are figures out on that. The question that we have about this, of course, is the way in which it was done. This was done so quickly, without public input. Even though the Oil and Gas Commission has its report about cumulative effects, when these land sales began in 2003, essentially, and I think Encana was one of the first companies that got prime areas in these leases—
4:55 p.m.
Coordinator, British Columbia Tap Water Alliance
As these things evolve, sure we've got lots of money, but now we have to deal with the problems that should have been dealt with to begin with, as I pointed out in the quote from 1986 about trying to establish what's going to happen on the land before giving out these lease agreements.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
You can be happy because we have the same problems in Quebec, but we don't have the same money. It's rather odd.
4:55 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
The B.C. government, after the land sales, also makes tax dollars, and things coming off those leases too. So there is additional revenue.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Yes. That's what they promised, too, in Quebec.
You talked about strategic planning, which had to be more important than oil companies' rights. In Quebec, at present, it seems we are having the same problem you are criticizing in British Columbia. Things are being done in haste, with no strategic development, and we are embarking on absolutely unbelievable things.
I will use an example that Mr. Welt gave me during the break. He told me it was really quite extraordinary. He told me he had worked for the oil companies in Texas, for Texaco. He installed floating roofs in gas tanks in Beaumont, Texas. When he went to install the roofs, he arranged it so his first roof was done to perfection, because then he would sell more. If the others had little problems, it was less important, but the first one had to be perfect. So they drilled 30 wells. That was the first 30, and 20 of them produced, and they are asking us to trust them, they are asking us to believe that when there are 15,000 of them, it will all be fine.
Do you not think that people in Quebec are right to be afraid and to ask serious questions, given these circumstances?
5 p.m.
Coordinator, British Columbia Tap Water Alliance
Absolutely. This is the process that's proceeding in the United States.
Tim from Apache mentioned that fracking is an old thing. Actually, fracking started off in a new kind of way in Alabama in the 1980s as coal bed methane areas, coal beds, were being fracked. This was new technology.
The interesting thing is that as I'm researching this history, I'm finding out what the impacts on the environment were at the time. Of course, these things were proceeding on private property lands owned by U.S. Steel. They had more of a say in what could happen on their lands, but they were polluting the streams and they were actually poisoning people's wells. As this process began in Alabama, the number of wells skyrocketed.
The interest came from the United States. It spread out in the United States in the 1990s. As it was doing so, I think there was a problem that occurred in the United States without enough oversight in terms of regulations and legislation under national acts, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, and many other things.
These things are coming into play now. Everybody is wrestling with this right now.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
I have one last question for you. I may have a short question for Ms. Poole-Moffatt then.
The Americans are doing a study. In 12 months—not in 20 years—we would have a chance to get hold of a serious study, independent of everything that is going on in Canada and Quebec, and free of charge. Are people crazy to want to wait for that study before going ahead, in Quebec or anywhere else?
5 p.m.
Coordinator, British Columbia Tap Water Alliance
Yes, it is problematic because there are companies that have made investments.
The unfortunate thing now is that because they have done this, and the B.C. government has allowed this, as in British Columbia, it's going to become very difficult to say no to these things or to say to wait.
What are we going to do? There is no forum for public debate in British Columbia to solve these issues. This is probably the first time this kind of thing has been discussed in any forum on this issue. I haven't heard anything about this in British Columbia, people talking about these issues in an open manner.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Drummond, QC
Ms. Poole-Moffatt, you talked about the fact that the regulations in British Columbia were extremely well done. In Quebec, we are also wondering what we are going to do later, if we should decide to drill for shale gas.
In British Columbia, do you have to give the chemical composition of the chemicals you use for fracking? That doesn't seem to be the case in Quebec, because of trade secrets.
5 p.m.
Manager, Public and Goverment Affairs, Apache Canada Ltd
I'll speak to the first part, and then I'm going to let Tim speak to the second part.
In terms of British Columbia, they just created what was called the Oil and Gas Activities Act. In 2007 they did a B.C. energy plan that reviewed energy needs and security across the province. Then in 2010 they put out the Oil and Gas Activities Act. The act followed up on legislation, and toughened up the environmental standards that were created in the 1990s.
The Oil and Gas Commission was started in 1997, as Mr. Koop said. Of course, as all governments know, your regulations have to grow with the economy that's around them. Now there is a $5 million price tag associated with not working within the regime of the Oil and Gas Commission.
All of these things are very favourable and positive. As far as fracking fluid goes, I'm going to let Tim discuss what Apache does. If you do get an opportunity, you should go on our website to http://www.apachecorp.com/Operations/Canada/NewBrunswick.aspx. I really think what we've done in New Brunswick is a template for good consultation.
5:05 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
You have to remember, with regard to the fracking fluids.... And I don't know why the gentleman brought up coal bed fracking, because it's quite a bit different from the fracking here. These are water fracks. We called them water fracks 20 years ago, and we still call them water fracks. They're high water volumes--she's right--with some sand, again, to prop open the flow channels. That's what it's there for.
As for the chemicals involved, we actually don't mind giving you the chemicals. Most of the chemicals are what you have in the cleaners in your house. One of the chemicals we use is called a surfactant. A surfactant is basically soap. It reduces friction during pumping. Ninety-nine percent of the job is water, and we pump surfactant for that.
We pump what we call bactericide. Bactericide keeps bacteria from growing while you're pumping water down the hole. That is basically a bleach, with chlorine content.
The chemicals, a lot of times, are the same ones you'd see in your house. Apache doesn't have any problem with issuing them. Where some of the vendors have problems is with giving away their competitive advantage. They don't want to do that. Then they would have competitors jumping up and being able to replicate those since you had given them their chemical content. That's the problem they have.
Having a list of chemicals involved in a 99% water frack is not a problem for us.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you. Your time is up.
Mr. Cullen, go ahead, please, for up to seven minutes.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thanks, Chair.
Mr. Wall, you expressed some desire, I think, in part of your testimony to have better assessments or to do a better job of cumulative impacts. This is a question that comes up time and again.
The leasing process that you folks go through as an oil and gas company is one at a time. You seek a lease for a play. You say what you're going to do in that part of the area. Then there can be a lease right next door, in the same watershed, within eyesight, but the two leases don't overlap one another. There isn't any kind of a cumulative understanding of what the impacts may be.
That's how the system is designed right now, as we understand it at this committee. Is that right?