Study
| EST. READ TIME 2 MIN.Fracking bans needlessly deny Canadians the fruits of natural resource development
Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is a relatively new application of several old technologies used in oil and gas extraction that has made it possible to unlock large quantities of natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons—fuels that can be used to access new and significant quantities of unconventional gas with consequent economic benefit to Canadians.
There is no question that the technology poses risks to water quality, air quality, and ecosystem health. Few large-scale human activities are entirely free of such risks. Hydraulic fracturing also poses a risk of increasing green¬house gas emissions, and even a risk to seismic stability. Other issues which are real but not discussed here are water consumption (which is primarily a problem in water-stressed areas) and worker-safety issues related to engaging in hydraulic fracturing, which generally falls under its own set of laws, regu¬latory frameworks, and policy-development processes.
The literature on hydraulic fracturing risks, while increasing in volume, is not terribly conclusive and is sometimes contradictory. The reports considered in this bulletin—limited primarily to those of large-scale review panels or national laboratories—judge the risks to be modest and manage-able with existing technologies.
Alberta has been aggressive in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, and the industry itself has also adopted voluntary self-regulation practices that should ensure safe operations. The call for bans and moratoria are passionate, and no doubt heartfelt by those who fear the technology and/or oppose the product of that tech¬nology (hydrocarbons), but policymakers should ignore the siren song of the simplistic solution. Bans and moratoria may make it seem like one is taking action against risk, but they simply defer those risks to a later date, when activity invariably resumes. And to the extent that learning is foregone along with the hydraulic fracturing during a moratorium, bans may increase future risks rather than mitigate them.
-
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Kenneth P. Green is a Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of over 800 essays and articles on public policy,published by think tanks, major newspapers, and technical and trade journals in North America. Mr. Green holds a doctoral degree in environmental science and engineering from UCLA, a master’s degree in molecular genetics from San Diego State University, and a bachelors degree in general biology from UCLA.Mr. Green’s policy analysis has centered on evaluating the pros and cons of government management of environmental, health, and safety risk. More often than not, his research has shown that governments are poor managers of risk, promulgating policies that often do more harm than good both socially and individually, are wasteful of limited regulatory resources, often benefit special interests (in government and industry) at the expense of the general public, and are almost universally violative of individual rights and personal autonomy. Mr. Green has also focused on government’s misuse of probabilistic risk models in the defining and regulating of EHS risks, ranging from air pollution to chemical exposure, to climate change, and most recently, to biological threats such as COVID-19.Mr. Green's longer publications include two supplementary text books on environmental science issues, numerous studies of environment, health, and safety policies and regulations across North America, as well as a broad range of derivative articles and opinion columns. Mr. Green has appeared frequently in major media and has testified before legislative bodies in both the United States and Canada.… Read more