The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.

‘Insufficient,’ ‘Unknown,’ ‘Concerns’: BC’s Fracking Report Full of Apprehension

Scientific panel ran into ‘lack of info’ many, many times.

By Andrew Nikiforuk 27 Mar 2019 |

Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for two decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee.

Although a government-commissioned scientific review of fracking in British Columbia released earlier this month occupies some 232 pages, the word “concerns,” as in “concerns regarding environmental impact,” pops up more than 130 times.

That’s a lot of scientific apprehension about a technology that serves as the foundation for the province’s growing liquefied natural gas industry.

More than 90 per cent of all oil and gas wells in B.C. require extensive fracking, which pulverizes hydrocarbon-bearing rock with highly pressurized streams of water, sand and chemicals.

In its final report, the three-member scientific panel tasked with the review expressed “concerns” about every part of its limited investigation, particularly around water, seismic hazards and gas migration.

(It’s worth noting the review did not look at public health issues, cumulative land impacts, social costs, or the industry’s poor economic health or worker safety.)

The paucity of the data the researchers drew upon, perhaps, explains the proliferation of so many “concerns” in the review.

The word insufficient, as in “insufficient information,” peppers the report 27 times, while “unknown” appears 17 times.

Uncertain or uncertainty, as in “uncertain water quality,” appears nearly 50 times, while gaps, as in “important knowledge gaps,” litters the document 27 times.

Here’s a brief snapshot of eight “insufficient” and “unknown” data gaps the government of B.C., a proponent of LNG terminals, still faces regarding the impacts of the fracking industry on water, earthquakes and gas migration.

1. The government knows little about the state of groundwater in the northeastern B.C., or how fracked wells or wastewater disposal wells may impact that critical resource over time. The province operates just seven groundwater observation wells for a vast area.

The review noted, “In [northeastern B.C.], there is a general lack of information on groundwater, particularly the extent and thickness of aquifers, because there are very few groundwater well records that can be used to map aquifers with any degree of confidence.”

2. The report couldn’t draw conclusions about risks the industry poses to water, land and health because of insufficient data. “The very rapid development of shale gas in [northeastern B.C.] has made it difficult to assure that risks are being adequately managed at every step. Furthermore, the panel could not quantify risk because there are too few data to assess risk.”

3. The report couldn’t tell if the industry-funded B.C. Oil and Gas Commission was a competent regulator because, after a decade of overseeing a fracking boom in northeastern B.C., “insufficient evidence was provided to the panel to assess the degree of compliance and enforcement of regulations.”

4. The government knows little about radioactive hazards associated with fracking. Shale deposits containing oil or gas are deep and often contain salty waters contaminated with uranium, thorium and radium. The industry calls these radioactive elements “Normally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM).” Fracking has changed the concentration and volume of NORM being produced at wellsites across North America.

“The issue of NORM throughout wastewater cycle (storage facilities, pipes, solid waste) needs careful examination by government to determine if current practices are sufficient for protecting human health and the environment,” reads the report.

5. The fracking industry consumes rivers and lakes of water, yet data on water quantity is insufficient or unknown. Even the panel noted that the data it cited in the report on water consumption by the industry was “outdated.”

“Considering the vastness of the region, alongside the increased level of industrial development, the panel considers the baseline data and the ongoing monitoring of surface water and groundwater quantity to be insufficient.

“Baseline data and information on streamflow, lake levels, and wetlands are sorely lacking, particularly given the high demand for surface water for industrial use.”

A B.C. Oil and Gas Commission technical expert told the panel, “There are a lot of data shortages, especially in smaller basins, and industry is interested in these smaller basins.”

6. There are serious questions about the region’s geological capacity to accommodate more disposal wells should LNG ramp up. Every year the fracking industry generates millions of barrels of toxic salty wastewater from shale formations. The law requires that industry re-inject these so-called “produced waters” back into the ground into designated disposal wells.

Pumping waste into 100 designated disposal wells over time has caused earthquakes and forced the closure of seven disposal wells. Disposal wells remain a constant threat to groundwater too.

The scientific panel learned that “if LNG ramps up again, [there would be] more pressure on these disposal wells. From a technical perspective, there are limits on pressure and flow due to potential seismic influences, and there are also potential impacts to neighbouring oil and gas wells and other disposal wells.”

The report added that “significant concern was expressed by government staff, the regulator and industry about insufficient capacity for wastewater disposal in [northeastern B.C.], because “there is no solid understanding of the volume needed and disposal requirements in the Montney for growth scenarios.”

7. The report raised multiple concerns about the thousands of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal wells in northeastern B.C. It noted that cumulative injection volumes had played a role in generating earthquakes in areas with “dense hydraulic fracturing operations.”

The panel found that “the maximum magnitude of an event that could be induced in [northeastern B.C.] is unknown” and that “evaluating the success of a mitigation technique is difficult, given the industry’s current inability to forecast what would have happened without mitigation.” Given all the unknowns, the panel recommended more and better seismic monitoring in the region.

8. The B.C. government doesn’t have good data on the number of methane leaks from oil and gas wells, or the volume of fugitive methane being released by the industry. Methane, a greenhouse gas, is a much more potent destabilizer of the climate than carbon dioxide.

The panel recommended that industry data on surface casing leaks within the wellbore “be made publicly available, including both detected/measured leaks and monitoring and mitigation measures taken. In several cases, it was communicated to the panel that known leaks were being allowed to persist and that they would be dealt with at the time of well abandonment.”

On leaks outside the wellbore, known as “gas migration,” the panel reported that it “was acknowledged by both industry and non-industry presenters that there is a need for a better sense of occurrences and incident rates.”

In conclusion, the panel noted “an overall lack of transparency of data and information.”

As cement in wellbores ages, it cracks creating pathways for methane and other gases such as radium to find a way to the surface. The report noted, “experiences with the long-term integrity of wellbores is limited and represents a major knowledge gap.”

The report, which has stated nothing new about the industry and offers no concrete data on water consumption or waste water volume, failed to address a number of other critical issues, such as diminishing returns.

Fracking deep shale rock requires more capital, water and energy to retrieve fewer hydrocarbons than conventional drilling.

In most shale basins, companies only recover 12 to 18 per cent of the resource, even though they are using massive volumes of sand and water to attack the rock.

In contrast, the drilling of conventional resources often recover as much as 30 to 40 per cent of the resource.  [Tyee]

Read more: Energy, Environment

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free

Tyee Commenting Guidelines

Do not:

  •  Use sexist, classist, racist or homophobic language
  • Libel or defame
  • Bully, threaten, name-call or troll
  • Troll patrol. Instead, downvote, or flag suspect activity
  • Attempt to guess other commenters’ real-life identities


  • Verify facts, debunk rumours
  • Add context and background
  • Spot typos and logical fallacies
  • Highlight reporting blind spots
  • Ignore trolls and flag violations
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity
  • Stay on topic
  • Connect with each other


The Barometer

Tyee Poll: What Coverage Would You Like to See More of This Year?

Take this week's poll