Evidence of meeting #56 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was well.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Sure.
To link back to Mr. Warawa's comment, it's very hard to know who to believe. We have Mr. Pryce saying there's no noise and Ms. Ernst saying there's a lot of noise.
Were environmental assessments done? Are environmental assessments done before there are these kinds of drilling projects? Obviously not federal assessments, because you're not apparently impacting on fish, for example, but does the government do environmental assessments on these things?
Vice-President, Western Canada Operations, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
I'm assuming this is still the noise question.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Having to do with noise, having to do with potential water contamination--anything. Who does the assessment? I know you have regulations, but who does the assessment?
Vice-President, Western Canada Operations, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
The Energy and Utilities Board does some of that and Alberta Environment does some of that.
Vice-President, Western Canada Operations, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
They assess the merits of the project.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
The merits of the project or the environmental impacts of the project? These are two different questions.
Vice-President, Western Canada Operations, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
The mandate of the Energy and Utilities Board is to look at the merits of the project from an economical, technical, and environmental perspective. They have that mandate in their interest of looking at the interests of Albertans as a whole.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Ms. Ernst, you have in Alberta one of Canada's great freshwater experts, a man I have had the pleasure and honour of meeting and knowing, David Schindler. Have you consulted him? What does he think about all this?
Environmental Specialist, Ernst Environmental Services
I don't think I have the right to speak on his behalf. It would be good to bring him here, but I have—
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I understand that. I don't understand why he's not here today, quite frankly.
Environmental Specialist, Ernst Environmental Services
Yes, well, I don't understand why the regulators aren't here. I have to bring this up. I don't understand why CAPP is here instead of Alberta Environment and the regulator.
I think Dr. Schindler is very worried. He has great concerns, too, about the amount of water being used for the oil sands and for CBM, because we're starting to run out of water in some parts of Alberta.
Liberal
Environmental Specialist, Ernst Environmental Services
Yes, and about the contamination, he is also very concerned.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
He's also worried. I don't know why he's not here, Mr. Chair. He should be here by videoconference. He's at the University of Alberta.
Environmental Specialist, Ernst Environmental Services
May I add a quick comment about the noise assessment? I'm sorry to jump in. I'll be very quick.
Liberal
Environmental Specialist, Ernst Environmental Services
One of the interesting things is that when EnCana studied the noise at my property, they had their consultant do the work. They were to study the ambient noise, which is the noise without the industry. So they turned off two of the compressors--they are supposed to study for 24 hours and they only did 12 hours--but they left all the other compressors running. Their conclusion was that the ambient noise is very loud in this area, therefore.... And they used this as part of their reasoning so say they were within the regulations.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I see.
Mr. Pryce, what do you think about Mr. Schwartz's view that:
The new regulations allow for the unrestricted injection of formation stimulants such as benzene, toluene, xylene, synthetic olefins and methanol into fresh water zones below 600 meters or less. Tons of these chemicals are currently being used to stimulate CBM well. This contaminated groundwater will eventually surface as river flow.
And then it would flow into other provinces. Apparently, part of the river system runs directly into Hudson Bay. How do you respond to that? Is it simply by saying your casings are impermeable?
Vice-President, Western Canada Operations, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
I'll ask my colleague to speak to that.
Engineer, Canadian Society for Unconventional Gas
I'll speak to that. In Alberta there is something called the base groundwater protection, and the base groundwater protection is set at a depth below which the AGS, the Alberta Geological Society, believes what they consider to be non-saline water does not exist. So below that depth, the water is considered to be saline and therefore not useful.
Below the base groundwater protection, stimulation fluids will contain different products. I'm not sure if they contain everything you mentioned, but they will contain different things. Above the base groundwater protection, you're not allowed to use toxic materials. Certainly, in coal-bed methane we use nitrogen, which is obviously not toxic.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
So Mr. Schwartz is wrong when he says...in other words, these toxins are being injected into freshwater formations as shallow as 270 metres. He's simply flat wrong.
Engineer, Canadian Society for Unconventional Gas
They would only be injected in there if AGS had determined that there is no usable water at that depth or below.
