That's correct.
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.
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.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If this committee is going to write a report on this and make recommendations, one of the recommendations we're going to be looking at is better ways to get at understanding—because it's just one watershed in some cases. It doesn't matter whether you've done one well or six wells, if there's this much water taken out and this much water put in and chemicals and what not. That's the impact. That's the net impact on that watershed.
That's a fair anecdotal assessment, right?
5:05 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
But if you're pumping saline, non-potable water, then it's a different situation.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure. Regardless of the techniques, I guess what I'm driving at—
5:05 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
But there is a differentiation, though, because it's not drinkable water. It's not runoff water. It's not water that could be used in a household. It's basically an old ocean deposit that's getting produced, cleaned up, and used as frack fluid that you could never use otherwise.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand the technique used in some cases. That's not the case in all fracking jobs. Sometimes they use water from municipal pits.
5:05 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
No, it's not always the same. This is an innovative way we've used to solve the problem.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand, so let's get out of the specifics and into the general then, because that's what we're trying to drive at here.
With respect to the cumulative impacts of the oil and gas industry, if we're talking about energy security and which path Canada follows for energy security, this is an important thing to understand. It sounds as though Apache would be in favour of moves that would allow the cumulative impact to be better understood during the leasing requirement.
Ms. Poole-Moffatt might have something to add to that.
5:05 p.m.
Manager, Public and Goverment Affairs, Apache Canada Ltd
I would just say that as with all things we do, we will work with government. Of course, that's why we're here. We wanted to be able to present to you.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In your testimony you referred a lot to the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. Are you aware of the B.C. Auditor General's report of February 2010 that followed up on an earlier report from 2002 about the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission?
5:10 p.m.
Manager, Public and Goverment Affairs, Apache Canada Ltd
Yes, and my understanding is there was a subsequent report put out after that one in which the British Columbia government was told that it was doing things in the right manner.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
For the benefit of the committee, maybe we could add this report to our study, because often--
5:10 p.m.
Manager, Public and Goverment Affairs, Apache Canada Ltd
And you should also add the one that followed up on it.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There is no one disclosing that. The one we have from February 2010 from the auditor of the province said that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission had failed in its oversight of cleanup of contaminated areas, and failed in its promises of public disclosure.
To be fair, in 2002 the auditor had found the same thing and had come back eight years later and said himself that he thought things would have improved.
What's important for the oil and gas industry and for this committee in studying this is that if we're going to have regulators in place, they've got to be good. Right? You would agree with that.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
They've got to be good in terms of their work with the public and follow the mandate they're meant to follow. If commissions fail, if the regulators fail, then we're relying more and more on industry to make sure nothing goes wrong. You seem like nice people, but there are some folks out there who are not going to do the right thing.
My question is about the contamination, because water contamination consistently comes up as a concern. Mr. Wall, I think you can appreciate the general public's concern when told about the amounts of water that are injected, particularly with the list of chemicals that are put in. You're not required by law to tell us what is in that suite of chemicals that goes in the fracking fluids. Is your company prepared to disclose those? Are you prepared to encourage governments to make that mandatory?
5:10 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
We've already said we would tell you what's in it. It's not a problem for us. Again, the problem a lot of people have is that they don't want to give away their competitive advantage. We're just an operator. I can tell you what the chemicals are. Again, it's 99% water.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
And I'm trying to understand the cumulative impact. If I said that some of these chemicals are in the water in those pitchers today, there wouldn't be a lot of people drinking it. They're pretty bad. They're carcinogenic. Some are definitely lethal, in certain quantities, to humans and animals.
5:10 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
Again, a lot of them are cleaning chemicals. A lot of them you'd see in local stuff that you use in your house. Again, it's 99% water. I don't know where you're going with that, because you're pumping it in the formation and you're producing it out of the formation.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's my question to you. What's your standard within Apache for recovery of water that goes in and chemicals that go in? Do you have a self-imposed standard? I know there isn't a regulatory standard that says that if you pump in one million litres, you must get 950,000 litres. What's your standard for recovery of the water?
5:10 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
There is not a standard. Reservoirs are different. That's not the way it works.
5:10 p.m.
President, Apache Canada Ltd
No, no, I didn't say that. I said that there is not a company standard.
The way reservoirs work in general is that you pump a fluid in, and because of interstitial pressures in places where things cannot come back out, they stay in place. If you pump a job and you have no other water in the reservoir, you'll produce as much water out of that reservoir over a period of time as the reservoir will give up. You don't just say that after so much you stop. That's not the way it works. You produce it back. Over many, many years you might produce that water back. At some point, it might not be produced back and it may stay in the reservoir over time.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Koop, on this cumulative impact question, you raised it in your testimony. Why is this so critical to the oversight and proper regulation of the oil and gas industry, particularly with respect to fracking and with respect to this type of technology?
5:10 p.m.
Coordinator, British Columbia Tap Water Alliance
With the evolution of cumulative effect studies over the last 30 years, for instance, there has been a difficulty for scientists to undertake these things, understandably, because of the repercussions of the conclusions from these studies, which would limit development. There is politics about cumulative effects. It comes into play in British Columbia, and it comes into play in the tar sands.