By Maurice B Dusseault, Earth and Environmental Sciences, U of Waterloo

Three documents are attached to these comments:

• An article outlining the major issues of the Pennsylvania Auditor General's critical report and comments about the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
• The report of the Pennsylvania Auditor General, based on the period 2007-2012, which was the era of the very dramatic and sudden flowering of the Marcellus Shale play. 
• An article on well leakage by Tony Ingraffea.

This material helps to understand the roots of deep suspicion of industry and government behavior in the context of resource development.  Of course, the task of the Pennsylvania regulators is more difficult than in Canadian provinces, where the deep energy resources are owned by all citizens, not privately.  Actually, 99% of shale gas development in the USA is on freehold land; essentially none is taking place on state or federal land at this time.

Furthermore, the Marcellus Shale play happened remarkably quickly, and Pennsylvania government agencies were not prepared for the whirlwind of activity.  

In Canada, we regularly get swept into the current of US opinion, merely because of the huge and chaotic media and social networks activity there, so it is simply assumed that this is what would happen in Canada.  However, there is a long history of more careful regulation in Canada, and a bit of careful planning will avoid most problems if provinces decide to go forward with shale gas development.  Because development in Canada is taking place and will continue to take place very slowly in comparison to Pennsylvania, there is time to learn, plan, and execute in a far more rigorous and equitable manner. 

There are lessons to be learned in this story for all of us. 

Opponents to shale gas development who may study the documents and the science will learn that the magnitude of the environmental problems, even in PA, are not nearly as large as has been claimed.  There is no demonstration that there is a significant public health risk issue associated with methane in water wells.  It may be unpleasant, a nuisance, it can sour the groundwater, but it appears not to be a health risk.  Greenhouse gas emission levels, other pollutants, contamination sources, and solid waste issues are not fully quantified but, in comparison to other sources such as coal-fired electricity plants and animal husbandry, they appear to be moderate and can almost certainly be reduced through good regulations and management. 

Proponents of shale gas development will learn that there are real and identified issues with well integrity and groundwater protection,  Unless these issues are addressed transparently and honestly by the industry and by proponents in government, continued public hostility and suspicion will continue to reign.  And, we know and are finding out once again in the Hydraulic Fracture Review process in Nova Scotia (public meetings) and the protests in New Brunswick, that opponents are far better organized than proponents.  Dismissing their concerns is paternalistic and non-productive.  If proponents say there is no problem, they must put into place independent and credible means of demonstrating this quantitatively, as much as possible.  Denial, ridicule, and "shooting the messenger" are counter-productive activities.  Proponents and government have a large job ahead in rebuilding trust, and the courts of law are not the preferred pathway.

The "muddled middle" has a message to take away as well.  The light of day is being shone on issues and concerns, as well as on benefits and economic spin-offs; these are being evaluated and both benefits and concerns are being better balanced by all parties.  Even in jurisdictions as fraught as Pennsylvania and our Maritime provinces, the resolution of these issues is moving forward, albeit very slowly at times, and still in a charged atmosphere. 

A regulatory agency with authority and sufficient personnel and financing to enforce regulations appears not to have been fully in place in Pennsylvania.  This is a lesson for all sides in the debate.  Transparency and openness by all parties, particularly in Canada where the people own the resource, is a necessity.  There is an important role for local communities, who must be informed with the facts and the science to help them make decisions.  We can do better.