Committees banner image

login bonus 12bet mobile_best odds app_Welfare offer bet365 iphone app


The Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing was established by Order of the Legislative Assembly on May 6, 2013 (Motion No. 433). The membership of the Committee was amended by the Legislative Assembly on November 18, 2013 (Motion No. 518). The Committee's reporting deadline was amended by the Legislative Assembly on May 1, 2014 (Motion No. 662) and December 16, 2014 (Motion No. 839).

The Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing dissolved January 19, 2015 after releasing its final report.

The membership of the Committee was comprised of:

Patti McLeod (Chair)
Lois Moorcroft (Vice-Chair)
Hon. Currie Dixon
Darius Elias Sandy Silver
Jim Tredger

Final Report

Final Report (January 19, 2015)

Motions Concerning the Committee

Motion extending the Committee’s reporting deadline (Motion No. 839, carried?December 16, 2014)

Motion extending the Committee’s reporting deadline (Motion No. 662, carried May 1, 2014)

Motion?amending the Committee’s membership (Motion No. 518, carried November 18, 2013)

Motion establishing the Select Committee?Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing (Motion No. 433, carried May 6, 2013)

Schedules and Itineraries

Public Hearings schedule

Public Proceedings Schedules



Presentation materials prepared for the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing:

Fact-Finding Mission to Alberta

January 8, 2014 Alberta Health Services Presentation
  Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Presentation
  Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Reference List
  Bernhard Mayer, Professor,
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Calgary
  Cochrane Area Under Siege Coalition (CAUS-C)
Nielle and Howard Hawkwood

January 7, 2014 Schlumberger PSAC Presentation
Additional Resources 
January 6, 2014 Alberta Energy Regulator Presentation 1
Presentation 2
Sundre Petroleum Operators Group Presentation
  Alberta Surface Rights Group Presentation not available
  Ronalie and Shawn Campbell Presentation
  Diana Daunheimer Presentation

In Camera Briefings

November 22, 2013 Yukon Conservation Society Presentation
Dr. Brendan Hanley,
Chief Medical Officer of Health, Yukon
November 15, 2013 Rick Chalaturnyk, PhD, PEng
Professor, Geotechnical Engineering
University of Alberta
October 9, 2013 Yukon Chamber of Commerce Energy Committee Presentation
Yukoners Concerned About Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Presentation
September 30, 2013 Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board Presentation
  Yukon Water Board Presentation
Speaking Notes
September 27, 2013 Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Presentation
Response to outstanding questions
September 26, 2013 Department of Environment Presentation
  Department of Justice Presentation
Reference List




Motion No. 433 tasked the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing with “gathering input from the Yukon public, First Nations, stakeholders, and stakeholder groups including non-governmental organizations.”

To this end, the Committee held public hearings in Faro, Carmacks, Dawson City, Ross River, Haines Junction, Mayo, jointly in Carcross and Tagish, Pelly Crossing, Teslin, Whitehorse, Old Crow, and Watson Lake. The communities were selected based on requests from Yukoners.

Please note: Oral testimony presented at the public hearings is included in the transcripts. In cases where additional written material was provided to the Committee at a hearing, it has been included as a Submission.


Whitehorse September 27, 2014 transcript  audio
Whitehorse September 25, 2014 transcript  audio 
Carcross/Tagish September 24, 2014 transcript  audio 
Haines Junction September 23, 2014 transcript  audio 
Mayo July 9, 2014 transcript audio 
Carmacks July 8, 2014 transcript audio 
Pelly Crossing July 8, 2014 transcript audio 
Ross River July 7, 2014 transcript audio 
Faro July 7, 2014 transcript  audio 
Dawson City June 26, 2014 transcript  audio 
Old Crow June 25, 2014 transcript  audio 
Teslin June 24, 2014 transcript  audio 
Watson Lake June 23, 2014 transcript  audio 


May 28, 2014

● Dr. Brendan Hanley, Chief Medical Officer of Health, Yukon
● Dr. Eilish Cleary, Chief Medical Officer of Health, New Brunswick
● Dr. Charl J. Badenhorst, Regional Medical Health Officer, Northeast Health Service District of British Columbia
● Donald Reid, Associate Conservation Zoologist, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada
● John Hogg, Vice President, MGM Energy Corp.

May 28, 2014 Presentations

Transcript of Proceedings

Health Presentations: | Video  | Audio (Presentation) | Audio (Q & A)
    Dr. Brendan Hanley, Chief Medical Officer of Health, Yukon - Presentation  
    Dr. Eilish Cleary, Chief Medical Officer of Health, New Brunswick - Presentation
        Response to outstanding questions  
    Dr. Charl J. Badenhorst, Regional Medical Health Officer, Northeast Health Service District of British Columbia - Presentation  
        Article referenced by Dr. Badenhorst: Reframing the Conversation: Understanding Socio-Economic Impact Assessments within the Cycles of Boom and Bust  (Authors: Badenhorst CJ*,** , Mulroy P*, Thibault G*, Healy T* - *Northern Health, British Columbia, Canada;**Health Officers Council of BC, Canada)

John Hogg, Vice President, MGM Energy Corp.: Presentation  | Video  | Audio
    Response to outstanding questions

Donald Reid, Associate Conservation Zoologist, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada: Presentation  | Video  | Audio
    Response to outstanding questions
The following documents were submitted by Donald Reid:
● Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada: The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction - Council of Canadian Academies

Infrastructure and Wildlife

Infrastructure and Other Risks


● Different behavioural responses to anthropogenic noise by two closely related passerine birds

● Water Management Challenges Associated with the Production of Shale Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing

● Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

● A habitat-based framework for grizzly bear conservation in Alberta

● Characterising the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation

● Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters

● The influences of wolf predation, habitat loss, and human activity on caribou and moose in the Alberta oil sands

● Science Update for the Boreal Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou, pop. 14) in British Columbia

● Reserve Pit Management: Risks to Migratory Birds

● Impacts of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise from Energy-Sector Activity on Abundance of Songbirds in the Boreal Forest

● Peace Region Boreal Caribou Monitoring: Annual Report 2008-09

● Unconventional oil and gas extraction and animal health

● Quantifying barrier effects of roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta


● Scientific, Economic, Social, Environmental, and Health Policy Concerns Related to Shale Gas Extraction

● Influence of Well Pad Activity on Winter Habitat Selection Patterns of Mule Deer


● Bird Mortality in Oil Field Wastewater Disposal Facilities

● Songbird response to seismic lines in the western boreal forest: a manipulative experiment




May 27, 2014

● Mark Jaccard, Professor, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University
● Lalita Bharadwaj, Associate Professor, Toxicologist, School of Public Health, University of Saskatchewan

May 27, 2014 Presentations

Transcript of Proceedings

Mark Jaccard, Professor, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University: Presentation  | Video  | Audio
    Response to outstanding questions

Lalita Bharadwaj, Associate Professor, Toxicologist, School of Public Health, University of Saskatchewan: Presentation  | Video  | Audio
    Response to outstanding questions


February 1, 2014


● Bernhard Mayer, Professor, Geoscience
● Rick Chalaturnyk, Professor, Geotechnical Engineering
● Fort Nelson First Nation
● National Energy Board

February 1, 2014 Presentations

Transcript of Proceedings

Bernhard Mayer, Professor, Geoscience: Presentation  | Video | Audio 
    Response to outstanding questions

Rick Chalaturnyk, Professor, Geotechnical Engineering: Presentation  | Video | Audio

Fort Nelson First Nation: Presentation  | Video | Audio 
    Chief Sharleen Gale
    Lana Lowe, Director, Department of Lands & Resources

National Energy Board: Presentation  | Video | Audio
    Abul Kabir, Drilling Engineer 
    Gary Woo, Program Manager
    Patrick Sprague, Director, Northern Applications

January 31, 2014


● Gilles Wendling, Hydrogeologist
● BC Oil and Gas Commission
● The Pembina Institute
● EFLO Energy Inc., Northern Cross (Yukon) Ltd. and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

January 31, 2014 Presentations

Transcript of Proceedings

Gilles Wendling, Hydrogeologist: Presentation  | Video  | Audio

BC Oil and Gas Commission: Video  | Audio 
    Paul Jeakins, Commissioner & CEO - Presentation
    Kevin Parsonage, Supervisor, Field Engineering & Technical Investigations  - Presentation

The Pembina Institute: Video | Audio 
    Adam Goehner, Senior Advisor, Environmental Engineer - Presentation
    Response to outstanding questions

Industry Presentations: Video | Audio 
    EFLO Energy, Inc. - Presentation
        H. Wayne Hamal, Chief Operating Officer
        Blaine Joseph, Operations Manager
    Northern Cross (Yukon) Limited - Presentation
        Northern Cross response to additional questions
        Richard Wyman, President
        Don Stachiw, VP Exploration
    Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers  - Presentation
        Alex Ferguson, VP Policy & Environment
        Aaron M. Miller, Manager, Northern Canada


On May 6, 2013 the Yukon Legislative Assembly adopted Motion No. 433, thereby establishing the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing. The Committee’s purpose, or mandate, is set out in the motion and it specifies that the Committee is to report to the Legislative Assembly its findings and recommendations on a policy approach to hydraulic fracturing in Yukon no later than the 2014 Spring Sitting. The reporting deadline was extended by Motion No. 662 to the 2014 Fall Sitting of the Legislative Assembly. The Committee’s reporting deadline was further extended by Motion No. 839 to January 19, 2015.

Motion No. 433 tasked the Committee with “facilitat[ing] an informed public dialogue for the purpose of sharing information on the potential risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing, as well as gathering input from the Yukon public, First Nations, stakeholders, and stakeholder groups including non-governmental organizations.” To this end, the Committee solicited comments from the public with regard to the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing.

The Committee’s deadline for receiving written submissions was September 30, 2014.

The Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing dissolved January 19, 2015 after releasing its final report.

Oral Submissions from Public Hearings
Written Submissions to the Committee

Oral Submissions from Public Hearings

See also Public Proceedings - Presentations, Transcripts, Audio and Video

●  Allen, Cindy - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Allen, Dennis - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Almstrom, Sabine - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Amerongen, Mary - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Annett, Richard - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Auston, Annie - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Baerg, Deborah - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Baerg, Mike - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Barrett, Wesley - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Belke, Annette - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Bemis, Gary - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Borisenko, Jimmy - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Boyde, Jim - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Briggs, Ken - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Briggs, Rosemarie - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Brisson, Gerald - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Burke, Corliss - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014) | Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Busse, Leo - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Buyck, Geri-Lee - Transcript (July 9, 2014) | Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Christensen, Ione - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Code, Angela - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Cracknell, Gill - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Davies, Jan - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  DONNESSEY, Claire - Transcript (June 23, 2014)
●  DONNESSEY, Margaret - Transcript (June 23, 2014)
●  Douglas, Judy - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Drischler, William - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Eaton, Brian - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Elliot, Kathy - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Evans, Pam - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Forde, Jan - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Foster, Bob - Transcript |(Sept 24, 2014)
●  Furniss, Allison - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Garland, Ted - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Genest, Michele - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Gibbon, Dorothy - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Gilgan, Gordon - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014) | Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Griffiths, Rick - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Haase, Gerald - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Halladay, Rick - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Harker, Davina - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Harwood Dabbs, Judy - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Helm, Edna - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Hill, Spence - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  James, Charlie - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  James, Colleen - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  James, Patrick - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  James, Rozlyn - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Jickling, Bob - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Jim, Bessie - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Johnny, Jimmy - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Johnston, Lois - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Johnston, Sandy - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Katz, Sharon - Transcript(Sept 27, 2014)
●  Kerr, Leslie - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Lalonde, Johanne - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Lewis, Mary Anne - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Lewis, Rob - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Macaire, Anne - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  MacDonald, Ted - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  McArthur, Deanna - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  McCarthy, Colleen - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Mennell, Daphne - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Mennell, Lee - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014) | Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Middler, Anne - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014) | Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Mills, Malcolm - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Mohamed, Reanna - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Mowat, Doug - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Mueller, Richard - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Nefstead, Margaret - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Nerysoo, Richard - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Niedermeyer, Gisela - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Obermueller, Peter - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Pangman, Jill - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Parlee, Thomas - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Parsons, Michelle - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Patterson, Frank - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Pellicano, Annie - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Peterson, Winnifred - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Pinard, JP - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Reichenbach, Liz - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Rhein, Werner - Transcript (June 24, 2014) | Transcript (Sept 24, 2014) | Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Saure, Reinhard - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Schou, Jannik - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  SKELTON, Jenny - Transcript (June 23, 2014)
●  Smith, Anne - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Smith, Gordon - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Smith, Sam - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Smith, Sean - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Stad, Theo - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Stoll, Erich - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Streicker, John - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Tetlichi, Joe - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Tremblay, Gerard - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Vigneux, Jacqueline, Frackfree Yukon Alliance - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Vogt, Astrid - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  Vogt, Felix - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Walsh, Bernard - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Weiers, Anna - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  WILKINSON, Terry - Transcript (June 23, 2014)
●  Wisemyn, Sharon - Transcript (Sept 27, 2014)
●  Wright, Skeeter - Transcript (Sept 25, 2014)
●  James, Patricia - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Crawford, Lawrie - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Carvill, Corinne - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Cranfield, Kathleen - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Hadden, Charlotte - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Wally, Eileen - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Jones, Heather - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Rembe, Ulla - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  James, Frank - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Brouillard, Rene - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Jensen, John - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Lishmaan, Ed - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Barrett, Larry - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Ash, Elaine - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Johns, Art - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Liebau, Dagmar - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Huber, Elke - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Mennell, Colin - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Ayoub, Natasha - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Seki Wedge, Fiona - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Gatensby, Harold - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Wedge, Mark - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Huber, Peter - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Wally, Robert - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Brigg, Liesel - Transcript (Sept 24, 2014)
●  Weir, Dave - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Markel, Rhonda - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Sutton, Jim - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Crawshay, Mike - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Hume, Elsie - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Farynowski, John - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Bielawski, Ellen - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Liddle, Brent - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Buzzell, Carol - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Allen, James - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Jones, Will - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Willard, Meghann - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Basic, Anthony - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Wolfe, Derek - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Cowie, Cindi - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Gade, Dieter - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Morton, Miles - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Osbourne, Debra - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Johnston, Katherine - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Delisle, Suzanne - Transcript (Sept 23, 2014)
●  Shannon, Barbara - Transcript (July 9, 2014)
●  O'Donoghue, Mark - Transcript (July 9, 2014)
●  Sabo, Ray - Transcript (July 9, 2014)
●  Hager, Roberta - Transcript (July 9, 2014)
●  Peter, Mikolay - Transcript (July 9, 2014)
●  Wheeler, Tara - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Moar, Robert - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Fairclough, Eric - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Gage, Carla - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Brown, Bev - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  TomTom, Rachael - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Kruse, Jerry - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Magrum, George - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Sydney, William - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Hall, Lizzie - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Trerice, Bill - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Silverfox, Charabelle - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Mason, Lee - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Simon, Terry - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Alfred, Roger - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Baker, Shaheen - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  McGinty, Kevin - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Joe, Danny - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Joe, Alex - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Alfred, Jerry - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  McGinty, George - Transcript (July 8, 2014)
●  Bolton, Ivan - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Sperling, Kitty - Transcript (July 7, 2014)| Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Morin, John - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Morin, Irene - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Etzel, Florence - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Williams, Bruce - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Bob, Doris - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Ladue, Brian - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Dickson, David - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Dick, James - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Nukon, Verna - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Shorty, Dennis - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Carruthers, Lee - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Kazda, Peter - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Hampton, Murray - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Guspie, Russell - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Gibson, Dale - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Schaupp, Hartwig - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Peeling, Katy - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Erlinger, Gerald - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Moreira, Lucy - Transcript (July 7, 2014)
●  Frisch, Julie - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Taggart, Jim - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Selkirk, Kath - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Jones, Sebastian - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Shädda, Terry - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Webster, Kathy - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Pennell, Shirley - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Caley, Joyce - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Guimond, Suzanne - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Mosure, Jerry - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Taylor, Darren - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Gaudet, Elaine - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Roe, Wanda - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Shandler, Byrun - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  MacLeod, Chris - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Bell, Joanne - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Kendrick, Bill - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Vassallo, Jason - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Potoroka, Wayne - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Bell Engle, Elizabeth - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Pollack, Evelyn - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Clarke, Chris - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Piercy, Leslie - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Farr, Jay - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Horodyski, Ben - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Taylor, Eddie - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Davidson, Betty - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Watson, Rebekah - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Chamberlain, Faye - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Joseph, Roberta - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  Maletta, Brennan - Transcript (June 26, 2014)
●  PETER, Jeffrey - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  JOSIE, Paul - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  JOSIE, William - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  JOSIE, Vicky - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  LINKLATER, Erin - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  JOSIE, Tammy - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  KYIKAVICHIK, Brandon - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  BINGHAM, Bonnee - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  BRUCE, Robert - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  SCHAFER, Esau - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  KASSI, Danny - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  CHARLIE, Fanny - Transcript (June 25, 2014)
●  EVANS, Tip - Transcript (June 24, 2014)
●  MARTENS, Doug - Transcript (June 24, 2014)
●  BUCHANAN, Scott - Transcript (June 24, 2014)
●  SYDNEY, Georgina - Transcript (June 24, 2014)
●  JEAN, Alex - Transcript (June 24, 2014)
●  GEDDES, Carol - Transcript (June 24, 2014)
●  HETT, David - Transcript (June 24, 2014)
●  O’BRIEN, Cheryl - Transcript (June 23, 2014)
●  REMBE, Reiner - Transcript (June 23, 2014)
●  NEWTON, Sarah - Transcript (June 23, 2014)

Back to top

Written Submissions to the Committee

See also Public Proceedings - Presentations, Transcripts, Audio and Video and Committee Briefings – Presentation Materials

●  Burke, Corliss (Sept 27, 2014)

Written Submission


Written Submission

●  DONNESSEY, Mida (June 23, 2014)

Written Submission

●  First Nation of Na Cho Nyäk Dun (July 9, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Foster, Bob (Sept 24, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Gilgan, Gordon (Sept 27, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Harker, Davina (Sept 25, 2014)

Written Submission

●  James, Geraldine C. (Sept 24, 2014)

Written Submission

●  James, Stanley (Sept 24, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Johnston, Sandy (Sept 27, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Katz, Sharon (Sept 27, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Lewis, Mary Anne (Sept 24, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation (July 8, 2014)

Written Submission

●  MacDonald, Ted (Sept 27, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Mayo District Renewable Resources Council ( July 9, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Pinard, JP (Sept 25, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Reichenbach, Liz (Sept 25, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Rhein, Werner (Sept 24, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Rhein, Werner (Sept 27, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Sabo, Ray and Hager, Roberta (July 9, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline, Frackfree Yukon Alliance (Sept 27, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Shannon, Barbara (July 9, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Sperling, Kitty (July 7, 2014)

Written Submission

●  LINKLATER, Erin (June 25, 2014)

Written Submission

●  KYIKAVICHIK, Brandon (June 25, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Carcross/Tagish First Nation (Oct 10, 2014)

Carcross/Tagish First Nation Submission

●  Porcupine Caribou Management Board (Oct 9, 2014)

Porcupine Caribou Management Board Submission

●  Adshead, Casey and Erin (Sept 30, 2014)

To the select committee regarding the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing,
We encourage all committee members to recommend that hydraulic fracturing is denied any support of becoming a reality in this great natural beauty we call Yukon Territory.

Our lives and careers are a part of this territory. We call it home, and believe that the decisions made by our elected officials whom represent all Yukoner's have the integrity and moral responsibility to realize that hydraulic fracturing has no place in our territory.

Hydraulic fracturing brings long term environmental impact to our aquatic, atmospheric and ecological environments. The economic gains from fracking are short term. In relation to the long lasting environmental impacts this industrial activity would have on our sensitive northern climate the benefits are worthless.

Clean water is a right to every living organism. It is our duty as stewards of this territory to keep our water free of contaminates and man made chemicals. Yukon Territory is the last northwestern frontier of this great nation we call Canada. It is home to some of the most intact, pristine natural habitats in the northern hemisphere.

It is an island in a sea of climactic change that is happening around the globe. We know how industrial development has brought humanity to the place we are at now. We also know that industrialized and developing nations are responsible for climate change, but at what cost to the natural world? The life sustaining place we need for survival is in flux.

Our short lived history with oil and gas may end up driving our species to the brink of extinction along with many others.

Yukoner's have a choice to say no to hydraulic fracturing as many other places have and leave this territory as it has been and should continue to be a safe haven free from the exploits of the petroleum industry.
Casey & Erin Adshead

●  Ashthorn, Dee (Sept 30, 2014)

To whom it may concern;
I would like to add my voice to saying no to fracking in Yukon. Simply, the damage that it can perminantly do to our water is not worth it. Please strongly consider the many costs to our shared future; the planet's, all living creatures and future generations.
Dee Ashthorn

●  Campbell, Ron (Sept 30, 2014)

The total disrespect to the land with fracking is difficult to comprehend. The need cannot be demonstrated, but greed reigns supreme. The risks to the underground ecosystem, along with the polluted waste of the world's most precious resource, water, are too great. Few places on Earth are untouched by the ravages of big industry. This is one we particularly need to keep out.

●  Carson, Tony (Sept 30, 2014)

Approving hydraulic fracking before all the consequences of the process are known is nothing short of absurd, especially given there is no urgent need to take the risks.

●  Cyr, Gaétan (Sept 30, 2014)

To who it may concern,
I am totally against fracking in Yukon as anywhere in the world. It doesn't worth to sacrifice the land, the water and the air to fills the pockets of the people from the oil and gas industry. It's my main concern, and I will think about it for the next elections.

●  Daylu Dena Council (Sept 30, 2014)

Daylu Dena Council Submission

●  Hewitson, Susan (Sept 30, 2014)

Hello Select Committee, My name is Susan Hewitson and I am a Yukon Resident. I am opposed to hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") in the Yukon Territory at any time and suggest a ban be put in place.

There are an incredible amount of uncertainties and unknown effects of fracking on not only the environment, wildlife, and waterways but also the communities and families living in areas where fracking is taking place. There are numerous accounts from the United States of America where fracking has taken place and completely jeopardized and destroyed the well-being of people, wildlife and waterways.

It is not only the chemicals used and the destruction of fresh water that is a concern but also the wild lands of the Yukon would be affected. Frack lines would be numerous and completely impact the landscape. The Yukon Government should be working towards developing technologies and/or adopting more ecological and sustainable practices for resource extraction.

Thank you for considering my strong recommendation to NOT allow hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon Territory.

●  Machin, Christine (Sept 30, 2014)

To the Committee,
I don’t support the idea of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. I strongly believe that the focus should be on finding an energy source that is renewable and will provide for the Yukon’s demand for many years to come.

This project will not benefit Yukoners. It will have a negative impact on the communities and surrounding environments. Not only is this form of extraction destructive to our environment and contributing to global climate change, it will affect the natural habitats of migratory birds, wildlife, forests and the future generations who could enjoy these beautiful areas. Our lakes, rivers and streams could also become highly impacted and contaminated. The aquifer that provides water to many homesteads may also be tainted forever.

Water is a resource that provides life to all species. It takes approximately 150,000 litres of chemicals and 4-30 million litres of water for each fracturing job, these numbers are outrageous. Where is all this water going to come from? The fracking cocktail consists of up to 600 chemicals including acids, detergents and poisons, known carcinogens and toxins that can lead to sensory, respiratory and neurological damage. After the hydraulic fracturing has taken place only 30-50% of the fracturing fluid is recovered, the rest of the toxic fluid is left in the ground and is not biodegradable leaving concentrations of radioactive elements behind.

Is this really a project that you want to be a part of? Why would we take a chance of gambling with hydraulic fracturing when we already know an environmental catastrophe like this can never be reversed?

I really hope that your decision will take into account the residents, wildlife, natural resources and future generations.

●  Sudrich, Rudy (Sept 30, 2014)

Please do not allow fraking in the Yukon!
Our water is more important then the gas or oil!
Rudy Sudrich Yukon resident from 1969 .

●  Baines, Joanne (Sept 30, 2014)

Under no circumstances do I support fracking in the Yukon. The risk of damage to our waterways and ground is too great. Let's think about the future rather than today.

●  Sharp, Clara (Sept 30, 2014)

There should be no fracking in Yukon.  No studies have been done for the possible impacts on heat and pressures on the intermittent permafrost and permafrost.
Our roads are not strong enough to withstand the impact of heavy trucks or equipment.

This is one area that still has much pristine wilderness.  No man, industry or company has the right to destroy it for questionable profit which will leave Yukoners with contaminated messes to be contained.  We should have learned by now from all the hollow promises of the mining developments of the past. 

We are blessed with many natural resources of energy to provide us with clean sustainable energy in this territory.  We just need a government with vision and courage and one that can climb out of the pockets of the oil industry.

Other provinces have taken the courageous step to say NO FRACKING.  Yukon, join them in protecting this beautiful wilderness from greed and distruction.  Fracking is rape of the land.
Clara Sharp

●  Buyck, Geri-Lee (Sept 30, 2014)

My name is Geri-Lee Buyck and I am the Youth Councillor representative for the First Nation of Nack Nyak Dun. Included in my speech that I presented to the committee on September 27, 2014 at the Kwanlin Dun Cultural, I had declared that I would be submitting a petition that stated reasons being why Mayo residents and the surround area (that were available to sign on short notice) that are strongly opposed to fracking in the Yukon, Territory. Citizens of Mayo and the surrounding area opposed to fracking in the Yukon. Originals will follow in the mail. I only want to aware you on here so that it is on record that I did meet the deadline for comment submission. Please strongly take into consideration ours and the many, many others who are very concerned and opposed to the high risks and negative impact of fracking for the future generations. Mussi Cho/thank you!

●  Kucherean, Jeanne (Sept 30, 2014)

Thank you for making this opportunity for Yukoners to submit their comments.  We could reiderate everything you have already heard at the various meetings about the methane, the water contamination , climate change etc.  Instead, we are going to talk about a recent visit I, Jeanne had  to Alberta. 
My friends have been farmers on the land for decades.  The stacks that are now gracing the landscape in their vicinity are continually releasing toxic fumes into their atmosphere.  They are breathing it, their cattle are breathing it, their gardens are exposed 24 hours a day.  There is a haze glazing their sky and their water smells and tastes terrible.  Everytime I visit, the news of yet another family member or neighbor who has been diagnosed with or died from cancer, or other neurological conditions is the latest discussion.  Is that truly what we want for our Yukon?
Everytime I drive the Alaska Highway, going south, I always know when I am approaching  the industrialized  area of Fort Nelson.  The air smells different, the landscape changes, the poison gas signs appear,  and so  the peaceful feeling of safeness disappears.. Is that truly what we  want for our Yukon? 
I was born and raised here; I stayed because the Yukon offered everything that was sacred to my beliefs, my health, my wellbeing and my soul!  My children were raised here and  now I have a granddaughter who was born here and is being  raised here.  Her furture is in our hands!  As is the furture of your children and grandchildren who reside and  may grow up and stay here.  Please recommend that the Yukon remain a No Fracking Zone!

You will find attached a personal introduction of part of my family. Photo 1    Photo 2
We may be small but we have a mighty big view that the people who get to make the decisons on our behalf, might actually make what is truly in the best interest of our pristine land and its occupants (both those who can and cannot add their voices). PLEASE do not allow fracking to mess up our Yukon and our lives!
Trusting in your committee,
Jeanne ( M.J. )  Kucherean  (1st generation Yukoner)
Keira Kucherean ( 2nd generation Yukoner))
Gabby Gingras  (3rd generation Yukoner))

●  Overduin, Jody (Sept 30, 2014)

Dear Select Committee,
Thank you for taking the time to review the impacts and benefits of fracking, and for listening to Yukoners across the territory.
I attended many of the public presentations held inside the Legislative Assembly, as well as those hosted by the Chamber of Commerce.
After listening to the many presentations, and researching some of the many facts, I am strongly opposed to fracking and the use of LNG in our territory.
I am including some of the important reasons why I don't think that any of the fleeting and uncertain benefits would ever outweigh the major impacts to our people, waters, and lands:
? Fracking does not strengthen communities, it divides them, it's happening to our neighbours in BC and Alberta and will happen to us. We do not want that for our communities.
? Fracking will not bring us wealth and jobs, it will take away what we value most, our water, land, and the other living things we depend on. In BC the subsidies, tax breaks, and minimal royalties leave little to no revenue for the province. In fact the oil and gas industry make up only 0.1% of the provinces revenue, AND only provides 0.01% of total jobs.
? LNG is not "Clean Energy"or a "transition fuel": LNG is not a lower carbon footprint than coal. The amount of methane that escapes, (methane is 86 times worse than CO2), during exploration and production alone pushes fracked gas well above coal as a dirty energy source. Plus the amount of energy required to liquify and transport LNG is extremely high. Then add the fact that it is a continuation of our focus on fossil fuels rather than investing our time and money into renewable energy is another major flaw in the continued exploration and production of LNG/ shale gas.
? Water Use and Contamination: In BC more than 10,800,000 cubic metres of water every year are sucked from creeks, rivers, and lakes to use for drilling and fracking shale gas wells. Rarely is this water re-used, as that slows down the drillers who are paid by the depth and make more money by drilling faster. That amount of water is not being replaced by snowpack or rainfall. Contamination of local water is only matter of not rather than if, whether the cause be a failure in the well casing, flowback of the toxic mixture used to break up to shale, or improper disposal by either companies themselves or more often by hired contractors.
? Land Disturbance: Another major issue with unconventional gas wells is that they have a much shorter lifespan, which in turn means many more of them need to be drilled in order to produce enough gas. This combined with the level of land disturbance from exploration alone has devastating impacts on wildlife and their habitat, and in some areas has led to the disappearance of caribou and other species.
? Using the BC Model: the BC Model of how to manage fracking and LNG is one of the worst in North America. Not only is there no financial benefit, the regulations are not even close to what they should be, and the lines are blurred by conflict of interest. The same government department that promotes LNG and fracking is responsible for regulating and enforcing.
? BEFORE fracking were ever permitted in the Yukon, the minimum on risk management is baseline groundwater data (aquifer mapping) before any drilling starts, which would take years. Therefore regardless of the decision on fracking it should be years down the road before any fracking operations start up.
? Lastly, in the event we were ever to permit fracking in Yukon, any affected First Nations should be heavily involved if not in charge of environmental investigation, monitoring, and enforcement of regulations on fracking operations.
We are so fortunate to have what we have here in the Yukon, clean water, intact ecosystems and healthy wildlife populations. Fracking puts all of this at risk, and that's a risk I don't think we should ever take as a territory. Many other provinces in Canada have opted out on fracking, Yukon should too.
Thank you again for your time and giving us a chance to have an input.
Jody Overduin

●  Davies, Jan (Sept 30, 2014)

Dear Select Committee,
Thank you for this opportunity to speak regarding the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing. As a former regulator of hydraulic fracturing specifically horizontal multistage hydraulic fracturing in the Sahtu region for the Canol Shale I have had extensive experience in the project review and regulatory drafting of Water Licences which governed this particular activity in the Northwest Territories.

It was discovered early on that it was critical to have baseline information before any construction, drilling, and subsequent fracturing occurred. It was clear from the onset that specific chemical analysis was needed to ensure the right kind of information was available if should any issues, problems or environmental contamination occurred or was believed to occur. I would encourage the Select Committee to look at the Water Licences that were used by the Sahtu Land and Water Board or SLWB (based in Fort Good Hope, NWT) as a template for the kinds of terms and conditions that would be required. It is important to note the kinds of risks that these were specifically trying to deal with and mitigate.

I would like to speak to the kind and calibre of chemical analysis that is needed as "a minimum". Any hydrocarbon analysis needs to be done in the parts per billion range and as well as for any other parameters. Isotopic finger printing is critical as there are specific kinds of hydrocarbons out there that are natural and man-made in origin. It will be important to tell which are which. When the time comes that there is an issue it will be valuable to have enough baseline information that any effect will be able to be determined and identified as to the source.

You should also know there are two kinds of natural gas - biogenic and thermogenic. This will be important to distinguish between as biogenic is what is typically found in water aquifers naturally whereas thermogenic is what industry is trying to access. The two will have different sources and thus will explain what happened to cause it to be present. This will determine whether there was environmental contamination by industrial processes or whether gas is present naturally.

I would recommend that any chemistry related work be done by third parties that way if there are any concerns it wouldn't have the appearance or chance of being influenced by industry. The kind of water and baseline monitoring should be mandated by the Water Licencing or authorizations. There should be no self regulation by industry as too often there are different priorities and nothing should be left to chance, so in other words there must be prescriptive regulations and authorizations not goal orientated ones as there is a general trend to use by the environmental and regulatory industry.

The security that is required for this development or any work that is even entertained must use financial costs as if the company or industry just stopped mid work at the height of activity. This will entail the removal and shipping of all materials, equipment, waste to southern disposal locations in addition to remediation and reclamation of environmental damage. The securities that were required in the Sahtu/Canol Shale work was in the millions of dollars. At this point in time the risk is completely to the Yukon taxpayer and there needs to be learning from past mining development that left a legacy of contamination for Yukon and Canadian taxpayers to pay for.

If industry wants to do this kind of expensive and environmentally risky development here in the Yukon there must be waste processing, reclamation, remediation and disposal on site to minimize the risks of transportation and emissions from shipping it south. I would recommend against any downhole injection as this has long term stability and risks associated with it especially in an area that might be geologically active or unstable. Downhole injection of waste has no guarantees that it won't come back to surface (as this has happened in other places) just like hydraulic fracturing.

There must be the ability to ensure that well casings are adequately cemented with cementing to surface and borehole logs on each individual well. Yes this is expensive but critical to ensure there will be no leakage or inadequate cementing or installation of wells. This might be too expensive for industry to do but with the statistical amount of installed wells that are leaking it is too important not to do.

The amount of leaking methane is well known and documented. This will require monitoring, leak detection with appropriate detection devices and cameras, and immediate action. Methane as discussed during the public hearings is a well know greenhouse gas and besides it is the Yukon's resource that is being wasted and not paid for by industry. If the gas industry wants to work in the Yukon then this is what it will take to occur. Now is the time to set the right kinds of regulations, Water Licences, authorizations and requirements. Any development needs to be on Yukon's terms not what industry dictates.

Any development needs to have a thorough environmental assessment and cumulative impact assessment that also looks at any potential mines in the area. There can't be any timelines so as to allow complete and thorough environmental assessment. Too often industry gives way too much information to be assessed in the time frames that are typically for smaller projects. The right amount of time for the assessment is needed to allow all aspects to be reviewed by stakeholders and government regulators. This is particularly important given the cut backs to many regulators and government departments.

There needs to be adequate regulatory oversight and inspectors. This can't be done the same as with any other mining or energy industry as there will be completely different requirements and risks that haven't been dealt with before. There needs to be the right amount of budget to deal with the kind of response that will be needed from government regulators.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the risks of hydraulic fracturing. I make my self available to you if you should have any questions or need more information about the NWT hydraulic fracturing experience and learnings in the field.
Best Regards,
Jan Davies

●  gilson, Robin (Sept 30, 2014)

There is no revenue generation from the Oil and Gas industry. Its whole existence and concept of its existence is entirely dependent on luring investors with lies of the industries profitability. It is always operating in loss, is ENTIRELY dependent on investors, and what little production of gas there is the price is marred with hidden debt making the revenue a bad cash cow for government to even think of promoting, for fortuitous royalties.
Deborah Rogers is a veteran oil & gas economist.
Please watch: Deborah Rogers: Economics of Fracking (full talk):

And as well read: SHALE AND WALL STREET:

Also read the following
Frackonomics: Debunking the Financial Myths of Fracking Posted: 06/12/2012
It used to be that carnival sideshows toured rural areas with freak shows and snake oil salesmen, creating excitement with outlandish claims, only to confuse and disappoint, then beat it out of town. Nowadays, it's landmen looking to sign rural landowners on to fracking leases, and if it weren't for expensive PR campaigns, their calls might sound something like this, "Come one, come all! Come to the Freak Frack Show! See unbelievable production rates! Watch as the jobs grow right before your eyes! Don't wait -- sign your fracking leases today before the profits are all gone!"
For those who would sign, it may be too late already! In case you haven't heard, natural gas prices are falling without a safety net and the drilling circus is pulling up stakes in many towns. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has opened up new sources of natural gas and produced so much supply that gas prices have plummeted and drilling companies are abandoning wells. The Wall Street Journal says this could be the time to invest. If you're masochistic enough and have deep enough pockets to ride it out, investing in natural gas could pay off in the long run.
Or will it? What if, like most circus side show promises, the claims have been vastly overstated and the promises of high production rates, jobs and taxes are all smoke and mirrors, designed to make energy corporations, bankers and a handful of landowners rich at the expense of everyone who lives near (or downriver from) a drill site?
The industry's claims of high reserves, intense job growth and economic prosperity for fracking communities in New York State (NYS) were addressed recently at Frackonomics: Debunking Economic Myths About Natural Gas by Energy Policy Forum founder Deborah Rogers, economist Jannette Barth, Ph.D. and international environmental and infrastructure consultant Al Appleton. Appleton is also the former New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner and former director of the city's Water and Sewer System.
Rogers and Barth revealed some of the tricks behind industry claims. As it turns out, the reality of fracking as the bridge fuel to the future might not be as rosy as New Yorkers have been led to believe. Appleton presented some big picture concerns about the gas industry -- things that should be considered before natural gas drillers are invited to pitch their tents in New York State.
Here are some highlights of the presentation; you can watch it in its entirety on United for Action's website.
Deborah Rogers:
According to Rogers, all industry arguments for fracking rest on the matter of natural gas reserves. "If you can convince people that natural gas is super abundant, then the other economic arguments fall into place: ...there will be long-term benefits for a region; there will be good jobs creation and tax revenues; and there will be royalties paid out over long periods of time and then spent in the local economy thereby providing induced and ancillary benefits.'" Rogers went on to illustrate how reality is proving these arguments to be false.
? Industry vastly overstates reserves - Industry claims that 100 years of gas is available, which is misleading. While the resource may exist underground, it may not be readily extractable because it is not technologically possible or economically viable in present-day terms. In reality, reserves - gas that can be extracted right now and valued in the market -are more like 11 years' worth. Right now, policy and access to capital are based on possible future resources, not actual reserves. Sounds like the same thing, but it's not, and the difference is crucial.
? Industry overstates production - For example, in Texas' Barnett Shale, Chesapeake Energy reported production rates of 3.0 billion cubic feet. Independent analyses of historical production in the same play showed production values that were actually closer to 1.0 to 1.5 billion cubic feet. Rogers explained that the same practice has taken place in shale plays across the country, and since "all shale wells are the same," Rogers believes these to be fair models for the Marcellus. Between these and other misleading measures, it seems like industry is painting a rosier picture than what's realistically possible.
? Industry chases capital through aggressive P.R. campaigns - Many wells are overproduced initially to meet the production values that generate buzz and bring increased capital, so more money is made by the shareholders, but those production rates can't be sustained. The SEC has called some of the production rates reported by the industry "mathematically impossible."
? Industry has glutted the market - In 2011, production exceeded demand by fourfold. Industry promised production cuts to stabilize the market, but this hasn't happened because the companies need to overproduce to meet their debt service. Many wells are considered uneconomic, don't get completed and are essentially abandoned.
? Industry exaggerates claims of big job growth - Between 2003 and 2011, jobs in the oil & gas industry as a whole (and not just within the natural gas industry alone) increased by about 68,000, representing only about 1/20 of 1 percent of the overall labor market.
Jannette Barth:
According to Barth, "Conclusions from unbiased research are vastly different from the conclusions made by the industry-funded studies." Barth read the economic assessment done by Ecology & Environment - the firm hired by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to do the economic analysis of its environmental review (called the Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement or "SGEIS") - and said that she was hoping the study would be a comprehensive, unbiased, transparent, economic assessment, but instead found that the SGEIS report does not factor in negative externalities (damage done to the environment by the industry) or the quality of jobs that are created.
Barth reviewed unbiased data and found that the realities of the impacts of drilling for natural gas differ from industry claims:
? Natural gas is not safe and clean.
? More and more, problems are arising from fracking including water quality issues, air quality issues, earthquakes and negative economic impacts.
? Increased natural gas investments postpone investments in clean, renewable fuels.
? Natural gas will not provide energy independence.
? Gas companies make more profits by exporting gas as Liquefied Natural Gas to other countries because, unlike in the United States, the price of natural gas is tied to the price of oil and is therefore much higher outside this country.
? The claims about job creation and economic benefits are not proving out.
? For every million dollars spent producing oil and gas, 3.7 jobs are created. For every million dollars spent in the solar, wind and biomass industries, anywhere from 9.5 - 12.4 jobs are created.
? Natural gas is inexpensive now (one of the arguments used to promote increased development), however, increasing demand will drive up prices.
? Regions with oil and gas drilling are economically worse off in the long run.
? Extractive industries create short-term booms, followed by long-term busts. Many of the jobs created are not long-term and often the transient work force sends their paychecks home.
? Regions that used to have extractive industries show very high levels of long-term poverty and high unemployment rates
The SGEIS shares similar flaws as the industry-funded studies in terms of what information is and is not included. As of now, Barth argues that no one has conducted an adequate independent economic study of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. The review ignores many of the impacts and real costs of fracking, such as:
? Industrialization of the landscape;
? Loss of industries vital to the region, such as tourism, agriculture, organic farming, winemaking, beer making, hunting fishing, and river and lake recreation, among others;
? Increased costs for police, firefighters, first responders, jails and local hospitals;
? Increased truck traffic, accidents and wear and tear on roads;
? Increased health costs;
? Declining property values; and
? Residential mortgage issues.
The only parties likely to benefit in the long run from gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale are the gas companies and their shareholders and a few lucky, and large, landowners. The rest of us will be stuck with many of the costs.
Al Appleton
According to Appleton, "This country has had a love affair with fossil fuels. We grew up in a culture where discovering oil was good, and we all love to drive, but we need to accept some realities. The world we grew up in is over and we are in the process of birthing a new world."
Appleton says fracking in New York should be opposed for several reasons:
? There is no way we can avoid the environmental consequences.Appleton argues that even if strong regulations were enacted, based on his experience, between a lack of adequate staffing and a likely unwillingness to enforce regulations on a resistant industry, there's no way to do gas fracking "right"--to responsibly manage the process and engineering. It would be too enormously expensive.
? Shale gas fracking is an "un-development plan" for the state. Appleton disagrees slightly with Barth on the economics. The industry has $450 million of insurance in case something should go wrong in New York. That's not a lot of money and the people of New York could end up paying the full price for damages. "Gas fracking relies on the public picking up costs that the industry can't afford to pay," Appleton says.
? Gas fracking will not enable us to end our love affair with fossil fuels.Appleton says. "If you believe the future of the planet is tied to green fuel, then shale gas fracking is not the way to go." He believes we have not been creative by taking the money earned through gas and investing in future energy sources.
? Since the people have spoken passionately in upstate New York State against gas drilling, Appleton believes that there could be serious conflict in communities as landscapes are affected.
It's easy to get taken in by the industry barkers who make promises that seem so great, but when the potential costs are as great as they are in this instance, taking time to look behind the curtain is essential. And let's face it; natural gas is probably not the magical elixir of the future it's been touted to be. After all, if it seems too good to be true...
= = = = = = = = =
Reports: Shale Gas Bubble Looms, Aided by Wall Street Posted: 02/20/2013
Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog
Two long-awaited reports were published today at by the Post Carbon Institute (PCI) and the Energy Policy Forum (EPF).
Together, the reports conclude that the hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") boom could lead to a "bubble burst" akin to the housing bubble burst of 2008.
While most media attention towards fracking has focused on the threats to drinking water and health in communities throughout North America and the world, there is an even larger threat looming. The fracking industry has the ability - paralleling the housing bubble burst that served as a precursor to the 2008 economic crisis - to tank the global economy.
Playing the role of Cassandra, the reports conclude that "the so-called shale revolution is nothing more than a bubble, driven by record levels of drilling, speculative lease & flip practices on the part of shale energy companies, fee-driven promotion by the same investment banks that fomented the housing bubble..." a summary details. "Geological and economic constraints – not to mention the very serious environmental and health impacts of drilling – mean that shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) are far from the solution to our energy woes."
PCI's report is titled "Drill Baby, Drill," authored by PCI Fellow and former oil and gas industry geoscientist J. Dave Hughes, while EPF's report is titled "Shale Gas and Wall Street," authored by EPF Director and former Wall Street financial analyst Deborah Rogers.
"100 Years of Natural Gas"? Uh huh...
In President Barack Obama's 2012 State of the Union address, he repeated the fracking industry's favorite mantra: there are "100 years" of natural gas sitting beneath us.
“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy,” he stated.
Hughes concludes that the "100 years" trope serves as a disinformation smokescreen and at current production rates, there are - at best - 25 years under the surface.
Industry proponents rely on a figure known as "technically recoverable reserves" when they promote the potential of shale basins. The figure that actually matters though, is production rates, or what the wells actually pull out of the reserves when fracked.
In the case of U.S. shale gas, the booked reserves are operating on what Hughes coins a "drilling treadmill," suffering from the law of "diminishing returns."
Hughes analyzed the industry's production data for 65,000 wells from 31 shale basins nationwide utilizing the DI Desktop/HPDI database, widely used both by the industry and the U.S. government. He sums up the quagmire he discovered in doing so, writing,
Wells experience severe rates of depletion...This steep rate of depletion requires a frenetic pace of offset declines. Roughly 7,200 new shale gas wells need to be drilled each year at a cost of over $42 billion simply to maintain current levels of production. And as the most productive well locations are drilled first, it’s likely that drilling rates and costs will only increase as time goes on.
The reality, he explains, is that five shale gas basins currently produce 80 percent of the U.S. shale gas bounty and those five are all in steep production rate decline.
And shale oil? More of the same.
Over 80 percent of the oil produced and marketed comes from two basins: Texas' Eagle Ford Shale and North Dakota's Bakken Shale, both of which are visible from outer space satellites.
"[T]aken together shale gas and tight oil require about 8,600 wells per year at a cost of over $48 billion to offset declines," Hughes writes. "Tight oil production is projected to...peak in 2017 at 2.3 million barrels per day [and be tapped by about 2025]...In short, tight oil production from these plays will be a bubble of about ten years’ duration."
At current production rates, Hughes concludes, there is 5 billion barrels of shale oil located underneath the Bakken and Eagle Ford, which equates to a measly ten months-worth of oil at current runaway climate change-causing U.S. oil consumption rates.
PCI accompanied Hughes' report with 43 charts and graphs and a digital U.S. map with the production data of all 65,000 fracking wells in the lower 48.
Wall Street's Complicity
Roughly 17 months ago, activists from around the country set up encampments outside of Wall Street, coining themselves Occupy Wall Street. As Rogers' report demonstrates, they had the right target in mind.
Rogers opens the report on a defiant note.
"The recent natural gas market glut was largely effected through overproduction of natural gas in order to meet financial analyst’s production targets," she wrote. "Further, leases were bundled and flipped on unproved shale fields in much the same way as mortgage-backed securities had been bundled and sold on questionable underlying mortgage assets prior to the economic downturn of 2007."
In its early days operating in the U.S., the industry cloaked itself as a "mom-and-pop" shop start-up venture.
Rogers unpacked the reality behind this rhetorical ploy, writing that Wall Street firms are "intricately married to [shale gas and oil corporations]...With the help of Wall Street analysts acting as primary proponents for shale gas and oil, themarkets were frothed into a frenzy."
In other words, there are two spheres of economics unfolding: day-to-day in-field shale oil and gas production economics and Wall Street high finance economics. It's the insane economics of Wall Street investors fueling the economic decisions of those working in the field, in what Rogers describes as a "financial co-dependency."
Faulkner: "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
Are we witnessing another "Inside Job" of the sort Charles Ferguson portrayed in his Academy Award-winning documentary film by that namesake?
In his 1951 classic play, "Requiem for a Nun," William Faulkner wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
These are the words of a sage, particularly given the past century of "The Great American Bubble Machine," as Rolling Stone investigative journalist Matt Taibbi has documented of Wall Street's behavior financing multiple economic spheres that have led to near system-wide collapse.
At the very least then, if it all "hits the fan," we can't say we weren't forewarned.

= = = = = = = = = =
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY read and look up the thousands of articles of people who are harmed by the consequences of Hydraulic Fracturing::
The List of the Harmed : On-line at:
Compiled by Jenny Lisak


●  Sanders, Benjamin (Sept 30, 2014

At the Whitehorse hearings on Thursday, September 25, I came not to speak, but to listen. What I heard was an undeniably clear consensus from Yukoners that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are too great.

There were many reasons outlined why hydraulic fracturing would be bad, but the most compelling were those which made direct comparison to alternatives and ultimately concluded that the risks, while indeed bad, also far outweigh any potential benefits. The strongest voices were also rooted in scientific research and facts.

Why would we consider it in the first place? It's one thing to find reasons against, but if the reasons *for* aren't strong in and of themselves, then why force it through faced with such opposition?

I can only imagine four possible reasons why arguments could be made *for* hydraulic fracturing:

1) Economic: the promise of job creation was expertly diffused by the research from MIT which, as JP Pinard pointed out, identifies how many cleaner alternative energy investments which would yield higher employment returns. Furthermore, any potential proceeds from allowing the extraction to take place now would very likely be higher later when the resource becomes more scarce.

2) Energy: a potential for local energy independence? Certainly not in the short-term since, without our own refinery, much of the raw material would need to be shipped outside of the Yukon for processing before it could be returned for consumption. By that point any benefits drawn from local capture would become significantly diluted.

3) Environmental: the claim that natural gas is somehow cleaner than dirtier alternatives like coal is not really an argument for why gas is better, but rather why it's less bad. If we are truly seeking better environmental options, we should be more boldly aiming in the direction which would allow us to protect the environment and not simply endanger it less.

4) Political: it's clearly unpopular so why would the government risk losing the next election over such a provocative issue? The numbers for and against were empirically and undeniably clear.

So from Thursday's session, it's clear to me that not only are the risks too great, but the risks outweigh any potential benefits too.

I'm running for office because I believe Yukoners expect their politicians to be not just stewards of day-to-day affairs, but creative leaders who can carve out a vision that would make us a better, stronger community than we ever thought we could be. When it comes to hydraulic fracturing and the question of whether we should or should not, I think we're asking the wrong question. The more important question is this: why aren't we having these types of hearings on more innovative options, trying to decide which of the benefits we like most instead of which risks we like least?

But I'm only running for office. You're already there. And I hope you use this opportunity to make the right choice.

●  Durant, Janice (Sept 30, 2014)

As a Yukon resident, I value our land, our people and our unique situation where large portions of wilderness still exist. I understand that corporations are pounding at the door eager to frack. Having seen countless pictures and heard many stories of horrible devastation, I urge all who are in any way able to lean on this issue to take the time to make intelligent informed decisions based on independant unbiased scientific facts and reality. Decipher industry propaganda from what is really happening in fracked communities. Personally, I really want to see a complete BAN ON FRACKING in the Yukon. I am convinced that the many short and long term risks far outweigh any short term economic gains.
Let's look at alternatives and make smart choices for our wonderful territory and all who live here.
Thank you.

●  Glynn-Morris, John (Sept 30, 2014)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Ultimately I am cautiously open to fracking because I see it as part of this country's economy in developing natural resources. However, I believe we should be cautious and not rush like jurisdictions like North Dakota and take a more measured approach like Nova Scotia. Not "never", but rather "not now". Let's wait until techniques are better understood and the dust settles a bit. Sadly there is so much distrust in present government consultation processes in tandem with a wild west rush to frack, that I am not confident we are presently in the best position to give a green light. However, with a few years I think we will be in a better position to do so. I would also add we still need to sincerely explore and invest in renewable energy sources. They will improve our resilience to global economic and political forces and help us reduce our carbon footprint. Plus, why not be innovative and be part of developing made-in-the-north green tech , which will help diversify the economy?

In terms of this process, it has not been explained what the Committee is doing with input submitted, specifically to what extent the public is shaping the final decision, and by what criteria the final decision / recommendation will be made. As the public, I would appreciate transparency in this regard.

●  gilson, Robin (Sept 30, 2014)

Perhaps you should take to heart the millions of people all over the world who tell the TRUTH AND HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE - - - the people who have suffered the impacts – from the O &G industries who leave communities poisoned and devastated and the degradation of environment, bio-diversity, and to community infrastructures manifests economically, environmentally, and physically as related to health with huge impacts emotionally for every single person in those communities. People have suffered incalculable losses to their health, their children's health, their property, their water, their air, to the soil of their lands, to their creeks and rivers and lakes and ground water. People have watched their children suffer horrendous health losses, watched their farm animals die, and their pets get sick and or die. There are those who have had their homes blow up from methane explosions, who have watched their communities be turned in to toxic dead zones, and have watched their property values plummet to nothing. There are thousands and thousands who have lost all viability to hunt and gather from the land, due to the toxic poisoning consequences from hydraulic fracturing. They have seen caribou herds go extinct, they have hunted a moose and the meat is green and toxic for human consumption, AND THEY KNOW THAT NONE OF THIS OCCURRED UNTIL HYDRAULIC FRACTURING came into their lands with the recent brute force method of using millions of litres of water and 500 million litres of carcinogenic - toxic chemicals pumped into bore holes and all this proven to migrate through fissures and cracks caused by the rock being brutally fractured, inadequate and adequate cement well casings failing, methane emissions, etc. etc. As well men and women who work out on oil fields involved in frack jobs suffer life-threatening losses to their health and although gagged (why) by the O&G companies, they do tell their stor ies of the true state of affairs of this industry that creates environmental holocaust. Are they liars ?? For what? Why would they lie? Millions of people are going to lie??? And anyway pictures are worthy a thousand words. The ONLY people who lie and ignore these peoples cry of anguish are the O & G industry and government who want a piece of the action. You obviously cannot regulate trillions of litres of carcinogenic poisoned water. You cannot regulate trillions of litres of fresh water from the earth's hydrology that has been poisoned forever AND where do you dispose trillions and trillions of litres of poisoned water ????????? No one has regulated the leaked gases and methane from wells ever. MILLIONS and millions OF PEOPLE DO NOT LIE - - - -INDUSTRY DOES!!!! and they do it all the time. The only thing regulations regulate are the people trying to prevent their land and homes from being destroyed by those wishing to rape the land for inadequate gas a nd don’t care what the consequences are.
Perhaps Diana’s letter needs to be revisited here and read again, as this individual did not try to hide the facts about the DANGEROUS, ADVERSE AND INJURIOUS consequences of hydraulic fracturing and the HARMS caused - - - - NOT RISKS. Risks refer to possibilities. Hydraulic Fracturing leaves extermination of bio-diversity behind and a holocaust of harms in its wake.
Copied and pasted here is the briefing note of Diana Daunheimer & Family who presented for the Select Committee: /e3b/pdf/rbhf_DianaDaunheimerBriefing.pdf QUOTE: "Dear Yukoners;
If you do one thing this next year it would be to ensure you protect your beautiful land and resources and not allow the extraction of non-conventional resources by way of hydraulic fracturing into your territory and communities.
I say this with conviction because we have lived amidst this process, with wells surrounding our home and it has been devastating for our family.
In the past 5 years our peaceful home, awash in fresh air, beautiful views and a secure source of clean water was transformed into an industrial wasteland.
Contaminated sites now are our view, diesel fumes, sour gases and unmitigated methane venting has replaced our fresh air and compressor stations and unrelenting traffic shatter our peacefulness.
Our water is currently under testing by Alberta Environment because of suspected contamination and we will never feel secure about our water source again.
Now our aquifer will always be under the risk of contamination from failed casings, which has already occurred and failed pipelines, which is inevitable.
Not to mention the site contamination that is standard with each and every lease, running off into our local watershed, recharging our groundwater with contaminants known to harm human health.
Two wells within 300 meters of our home were tested for contamination disclosing BTEX’s and hydrocarbons thousands of times higher than regulations permit, yet the majority of the polluted soil was permitted to stay where it was and be dealt with in a “mix, bury, cover” scenario as part of the waste remediation directives the Regulator enforces.
Here in Alberta, dilution is still the solution in the oil patch.
Regulations are not sufficient to safeguard your territory in the face of industry.
Alberta states with confidence that they have “world-class” regulations, yet I have mountains of files that show each and every well near our home was non-compliant on several levels.
Inspections by the Regulatory body showed unsatisfactory performance time and time again with no mitigation.
It is not reasonable to assume this Industry can be regulated to the point of it being safe for humans and benign on the environment.
We have well records and investigation reports that demonstrate that in each well, highly toxic drilling fluids, such as diesel invert and carcinogenic, toxic “frac” oil were the mediums used to drill and complete these wells.
A number of the components within synthetic frac oil, drilling additives and substances created in the combustion process are listed on Schedule 1-List of Toxic Substances of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Much of this toxic material, up to 500 million litres per well, stays in the environment forever.
The millions of litres of fluids and waste generated by each well not left “down-hole” are either land-spread, incorporated into the lease, disposed of at landfill or into an injection well.
Not only is this waste poisonous, black shale cuttings and drilling waste are known to be radioactive as well.
How and why such activity with such harmful outcomes is allowed to occur still baffles me.
Furthermore how an entire Industry, its Regulator and all the encompassing lobby groups can misrepresent the facts on these processes falls nothing short of criminal.
We have been outright deceived regarding operations near our home and have non-compliance enforcement letters to prove it.
I am outraged when I see in print that fracture fluid is 99.6% water and the rest is harmless chemicals.
The truth here was 100% harmful, cancer causing fracture fluid.
It is also ridiculous that it is insisted upon that no groundwater has been polluted in the process or that flaring is 100% conversion efficient, creating no more than water, CO2 and waste heat from the burning of various waste gases, propane, methanol, nitrogen, and fracture fluids that may contain 30 or more chemicals.
During completions fracture fluid returns with formation gases are incinerated or flared, creating highly irritating, carcinogenic and toxic compounds, impacting our environment and health.
6 wells here have burnt billions upon billions of litres of waste gases, then continue to vent millions more each and every year. And it is only getting worse.
Since the low price of gas is no incentive to conserve this product, well tests, flaring and venting are increasing at alarming rates.
Increases in emissions are supported by summary reports listed on the Alberta Energy Regulator web-site.
If you perceive a problem with climate change now, wait until trillions of litres of methane (Global Warming Potential 86 times that of CO2 over 20 years), Nitrous Oxide, (GWP 268 times that of CO2) CO2 itself and a long, scary list of other priority air pollutants are being generated and released into your local air-shed.
As a family we have never been more ill, than in the past few years. We have farmed our land organically for 12 years and it was a beautiful oasis until industry moved in and began a sustained campaign to harm us in pursuit of profit.
My daughter developed a large tumour in her neck when she was 7, my son suffers from chronic respiratory illness, I have endured debilitating migraines and horrible chronic sinus inflammatory disease.
Our animals are chronically sick and many have died.
Dizziness, headaches, infections, rashes; if you live near a well that is venting up to 900,000 liters of sour gas a day this may be your new normal.
Noise and light pollution will also be your constant companions. If you have metal buildings, they may corrode exponentially with the sulphur dioxide being produced and falling out onto your property.
The mental distress, frustration and disheartenment you experience when your livelihood, health and property value is threatened should not go without mention either.
Finally, if the Regulator you create in the Yukon is anything like what we have here in Alberta, good luck to you in garnering assistance if any of these unfortunate circumstances happen to you.
In Canada, our water is not protected in any form from industry, there are no health programs in place that even consider the impacts from oil and gas activity and our Regulator in Alberta has treated us like the criminals for reporting a company that was unbelievably negligent in their operations and treatment of us in this ongoing situation.
We feel so disappointed with the regulatory structure and culture that we feel we have no recourse but to circumvent their lack of protection and litigate against the company responsible for violating our fundamental rights of personal security and enjoyment of property.
The only way to protect your family and land in the face of oil and gas exploration is to say NO!
Insist your government find alternative methods of revenue generation and pursue renewable energy options that are not going to destroy the pristine ecosystem you currently enjoy." END OF QUOTE
“Most Sincerely;
Diana Daunheimer & Family

●  Lalena, Guiniveve (Sept 30, 2014)

There are many intelligent and thoughtful submissions from throughout the Yukon listed here. I couldn't possibly say anything that hasn't been said already. I will simply add that I am shocked that we're at the edge of considering this. It has taken some time to really sink in with me, hence the 11th hour submission, but you have *no idea* of the depth of the opposition to this. To be direct: it will never be allowed.

●  Nielsen, Sara (Sept 30, 2014)

I strongly oppose hydraulic fracturing anywhere, including in Yukon. Impacts on water balance and quality, wildlife habitat, ecosystem, wildlife and human health known from Southern cases would would inevitably be worsened in a more fragile Northern ecosystem. In addition, our low population to area ratio will always mean an inadequate level of monitoring, enforcement and response capability. We cannot sacrifice the health and wellbeing of future generations and ecosystems by this uncertain, inefficient and damaging process, even and especially for, economical reasons. There is too much risk involved and we do not even need it. Hydraulic fracturing should banned throughout Yukon and focus should be shifted to long term and investment environmentally, community and economically sustainable energy production, storage and savings.

What happened to the Yukon Climate Change Strategy, Energy Strategy, Yukon Conservation Strategy, Whitehorse Sustainablity Strategy etc? Swept under the matt? Real implementation of these requires wholehearted and ongoing leadership decisions by all parties. Banning hydraulic fracturing in Yukon would be one of many steps forward. Allowing it, an exponential step backward.

Thank you for your time, dedication and leadership on this matter.

●  McLean, Bruce (Sept 30, 2014)

My concerns about hydraulic fracturing in Yukon are:

Overall footprint and scale of drill pads and infrastructure that would accompany fracking. Based upon other jurisdictions it wouldn't just be a couple of isolated drill pads here and there. Yukon has little experience managing cumulative impacts of the oil and gas industry, especially on the scale which would likely accompany hydraulic fracturing.

I am concerned about potential impacts to water, fish and wildlife in Yukon from this industry.

●  MacKinnon, David (Sept 30, 2014)

I appreciate that the Select Committee is listening to input from Yukoners with respect to fracking. I am opposed to fracking in the Yukon for reasons that have no doubt been reiterated many times by others. The path to a sustainable energy future for the Yukon will require difficult choices and compromises, but I do not feel that LNG development or fracking represent an appropriate way forward. The economic and employment benefits are too scant and it has been clearly demonstrated that LNG is not an environmentally sound energy source. We are a northern jurisdiction on the front line of very significant and undeniable climate change impacts. We should be demonstrating a commitment to sustainability and modeling an energy path that lessens our contributions to green house gas emissions. LNG development and fracking do not achieve that.

Combined with the very significant risks to ground water, the demands on our water and the challenges of dealing with massive amounts of water contaminated with fracking fluids; the risks simply and significantly outweigh the benefits of fracking.

Thank you for considering my comments.

●  Langille, Ken (Sept 30, 2014)

The primary reason why I believe Yukon should remain "Frack Free" is because there is almost no other way of extracting oil and gas without using large amounts of fresh water. Until industry develops a more efficient way of extracting oil and gas, I think this process should not be practiced in Yukon. Fresh water, in my opinion, is more valuable than natural gas!

●  Maltais, Pat (Sept 30, 2014)

Why would anyone condone this practice? Anyone w kids that is or any sense of the big picture. I have a well & have read lots if anecdotes about contaminated wells in the states b/c of pumping down this toxic cocktail into our aquifers ...sheesh...grab a brain & start looking out for our territory instead of your own personal Agendas. I'd like to se I you'd let them frack on your persional property?

●  L A (Sept 30, 2014)

I have no interest in fracked natural gas in the Yukon. Judging from other districts experience, the costs outweigh the benifits.

Unusable groundwater, noise, and roads everywhere in exchange for . . What exactly? The gas is going to be used to power mines owned by Chinese companies, and to produce power to be sold to us at the same or higher rates.

●  moses, Florence (Sept 30, 2014)

I say our beautiful Yukon Territory should be frack-free.

●  Hedmann, David (Sept 30, 2014)

I am opposed to fracking because the many environmental costs far outweigh the few narrow economic benefits. I attended at one hearing at the KDFN longhouse and everyone that I heard spoke against fracking. The committee has heard from many people and should respect what people are saying and, from what I've read and heard, the vast majority of people in the Yukon oppose fracking. First Nations governments are also opposed and all this opposition to fracking should be respected by the Yukon Government.

●  Schenck, Matt (Sept 30, 2014)

I am writing to express my views on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. I believe the costs significantly outweigh the benefits of this practise. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling in the US, as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.

Please focus your efforts instead on conservation of energy and alternative sources of energy. This has to happen anyway, before or after we run out of shale gas. Why not do it before and preserve the environment? (Or at least till we REALLY NEED it!)

Thanks for considering,
Matt Schenck

●  gilson, Robin (Sept 30, 2014)

This practice is also done in Canada
← A controversial electricity transmission line and charges of spying zap the reputation of Alberta’s energy regulator
EnCana Makes First Court Appearance after Being Charged with Violating Canada Wildlife Act →
Confidentiality Agreements, The Problem: Confidentiality agreements in lawsuit settlements can be harmful, even deadly, to the public
Posted on November 21, 2007 by admin
Confidentiality Agreements, The Problem: Confidentiality agreements in lawsuit settlements can be harmful, even deadly, to the public by Kia Franklin, November 21, 2007, Tort Deform
The prevalence of confidentiality or secrecy agreements is perhaps one of the least discussed and most fundamental problems with our civil justice system. At various stages of a lawsuit, a plaintiff suing a large corporation for causing serious harm will gain access to compelling information. If the parties decide to settle, there is a chance that all of this information, including that which implicates the corporation’s role in broader public health and safety hazards, will be kept secret under a confidentiality agreement. In participating in a settlement, the plaintiff signs away his or her ability to share information gained about the harm being committed, the settlement amount, and other valuable details.
As a result of confidentiality settlement agreements, a defendant corporation that is conducting harmful business practices may freely continue engaging in the same practices after settlement, with no fear of public reprisal. As a result, more unsuspecting victims are injured by concealed hazards, and then are being forced to re-invent the wheel in asserting their claims against the perpetrators. This system can lead to astonishingly tragic outcomes. For example, the Firestone and Bridgestone tires that exploded on Ford Explorers, killing at least 88 people, were first made in 1993 but not recalled until the year 2000.(1) This is because the public had no access to the vital, life-saving information from prior lawsuits that was kept secret under confidentiality agreements prior plaintiffs had signed during settlement.(2)
Perhaps the most extreme example of this phenomenon is asbestos litigation: lawsuits against manufacturers for knowingly exposing their employees and others to toxic levels of asbestos, causing often fatal lung and respiratory diseases. The first asbestos case was brought and settled in 1933, compensating eleven clients to the tune of $30,000 ($450,000 in today’s dollars).(3) The settlement agreement required that the lawyer not be involved in any future cases, effectively closing off the evidence and expertise he had accumulated.(4) It took forty-five years for anyone to discover this secrecy agreement.(5) Seventy-four years, hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs, and billions of dollars in paid damages later, asbestos litigation remains on the nation’s dockets. Had the details of the health risks of this first case been released to the public, many of these injuries and the litigation they required could have been avoided by implementing stricter and ultimately fa r less expensive safety standards on the asbestos industry and its service providers.
Many plaintiffs file lawsuits not just for individual compensation for their injuries, butalso to prevent the wrongdoer from inflicting harm on future victims. But these plaintiffs face external pressure to settle their lawsuits under confidentiality agreements even when public safety and health are at stake. Although many of these plaintiffs do not wish to settle under such conditions, they often feel they have no other realistic choice. Public interest lawyer Arthur Bryant describes the dilemma:
[W]hat happens at the settlement, is the company often says: ‘We will pay you some large sum of money but only if the amount we’re paying you is confidential, you agree to return all those documents to us, and you agree not to tell anybody what you saw.’ And often the plaintiff will say, ‘Well I don’t want to agree to that,’ and the company will say, ‘Fine, then we will go back to court and keep fighting for years and years and you’ll never get a penny.’ Again many of the plaintiffs and their lawyers feel essentially blackmailed as if they have no choice, particularly when you’re representing somebody who is seriously injured and needs the money to pay their medical bills, they really don’t have any choice. And that’s the way it ends up being kept secret through settlement.(6)
Supporters of confidentiality agreements argue that the corporate defendant’s right to privacy and to contract should trump any larger public safety goals involved in a lawsuit.(7) The privacy interest behind confidentiality settlements is usually recognized when secret information—for instance trademark information—is at issue.(8) But the privacy argument is also often used to protect corporations not from having their valuable trade secrets exposed, but from the “harm” of public accountability for their wrongdoing. As much as privacy is valued, a corporation’s privacy regarding its misdeeds simply should not trump the general public’s right to be aware of serious public health and safety threats.
Even when the plaintiff agrees to secrecy, the judge has the authority to protect the public interest and deny a secrecy agreement, but experts have found that most judges do not.(9) Corporations are supposed to show “for each particular document it seeks to protect… that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted,” but often the pressure on judges of running a full docket means that secret settlements are “filed under seal as a matter of course.”(10)
Supporters of confidentiality complain that prohibiting these agreements will prevent many cases from being settled and thus “clog” the courts with full-blown trials.(11) It is this argument that some scholars say creates pressure for many plaintiffs, as well as pressure for plaintiffs’ lawyers and judges, to settle instead of fully adjudicate their claims.(12) But this argument is weak in comparison to the public’s health and safety interest in disclosure. As the asbestos example demonstrates, early public disclosure would save lives and prevent future lawsuits, as well as help businesses model their operations in a way that is beneficial to society, and ultimately, to the business’ reputation and profit margin.

Florida law prohibits a court from enforcing a secrecy agreement that has “the effect of concealing a public hazard or any information concerning a public hazard.”(19) Forty additional states have introduced similar bills, but none has become law. What is needed is universal federal legislation that applies across the nation. [Emphasis added]

●  Chasse, Annick (Sept 30, 2014)

I'm against fracking. I've done my research and it's simple...I'm against fracking.
Thank you for taking the public's concern.

●  Durdu, Derya (Sept 30, 2014)


●  Carruthers, Lee (Sept 30, 2014)

I spoke at the Faro hearing but will add a final word here. You have heard all of the information about the very nasty process called fracking. You now know it destroys billions of liters of water, polluting it forever, making it useless for any future purpose.

You now know it has been scientifically proven to pollute groundwater.

You also know the process produces huge volumes of "fugitive emissions" of methane, which is 20-100 times as destructive to the climate as CO2. In fact, fracked gas has been shown by scientific studies (Cornell and Stanford universities) to be worse than coal for the environment over a realistic time horizon (which is much longer than the conveniently short period presented by Yukon Energy).

You have heard that fracking is massively destructive to the land, fracturing and degrading wildlife habitat and the esthetic landscape with thousands of kilometers of roads and pipelines and thousands of drill pads.

I hope you have heard that the production of fracked LNG is also massively energy inefficient. Once you see all the trucks, pumps and compressors employed to produce and transport the gas, you will understand the stupidity of it.

The bottom line here is that we should not be wasting our time and energy producing gas through the fracking process. We SHOULD be investing in CLEAN energy sources such as wind, solar and (carefully considered) hydro. These other sources of energy have been shown to produce far more jobs per dollar invested while providing clean, safe energy for our lives and lifestyles.

Forget fracking and get on board with much of the rest of the world and turn your attention to clean energy production. Fossil fuels are ever more quickly becoming obsolete. And, they will remain in the ground, should we someday find we actually need them.

●  Gibson, Philip (Sept 30, 2014)

I wish to express my opposition to fracking in Yukon.

In my view, there is enough information about the adverse effects of fracking to justify avoiding the practice. The excessive use of water and of unknown to the public chemicals, and the long term cost both financially and ecologically of fracking means it should be rejected.

Thank you for considering this submission.

●  Munn, Murray (Sept 30, 2014)

No to FrackIng

opinions of Murray Munn

it's so transparently clear to me that fracking is incredibly unwise, anti-environment and a sure harm to future generations. “Environment” is not just a bad word, an annoying meme; we are all part of it. Does anyone recall the mercury poisoning in the Lakes area of Ontario? Grassy Narrows ring a bell? This happened in the 1970s and to this very day that mercury is still causing harm to humans, mostly First Nation people, who ingest the water or the food that came from the water such as fish or moose that drank this poisoned water. To say nothing of the animals themselves. We would put chemicals such as anti-freeze and I don’t know what else ( together with unbelievable amounts of perfectly pristine clean clear water that will never be such again and we somehow think or pretend it's going to stay down there forever and not affect us. Well it will and it has: there are videos of tap water in the states and in Alberta (I think) taking the flame of a lighter and of cattle and dogs and other farm animals losing their fur from the carcinogenic toxins in the water they have to drink. There are families moving away and selling their generations-owned land knowing that it will never come back to the way it was – not ever again. I'm no scientist but it seems to me the Earth is a closed system where what goes into the Earth will eventually come up again … come back to haunt us. And not that
“eventually,” either, as the aforementioned cattle and other farm animals have proven.

Yes, I wish I knew an alternative that is safe and easily do-able — wind and solar are still not where we need them to be — but that doesn’t mean this is the way to go. Let’s try harder to find other solutions. This would be a noxious, ignorant assault on—and forgive me for sounding corny—Mother Earth.

●  Breitkreutz, Cindy (Sept 30, 2014)

Dear Committee,
I feel that we do not have enough information on the long term health effects of Fracking. A cautionary approach should be taken.
I've provided an article from the BC Medical Journal for your information.

Dr. C. Breitkreutz

Fracking in BC: A public health concern
Issue: BCMJ, Vol. 55, No. 5, June 2013, page(s) 238-239 Council on Health Promotion
Michael A Benusic, UBC Medical Class of 2014
Figure: Fracking process

Hydraulic fracturing, popularly referred to as fracking, is a method of extracting natural gas from previously untappable reservoirs. The practice has become an issue of international attention and debate, and in some cases condemnation. France, Bulgaria, and Vermont have prohibited the process, and mora¬toriums exist in Quebec, New York, and Delaware. Yet while some areas are banning fracking, BC is allowing it to boom—to the tune of 7300 wells fracked since 2005. Much of the controversy surrounding fracking lies in the largely unknown health effects, particularly given the potential for drinking water contamination with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.

Concerns and anecdotal evidence of already-present deleterious health outcomes have led to precautionary bans in the Sacred Headwaters region of BC and reviews at both the provincial and federal level. While we await the results of these comprehensive analyses, the Environmental Health Committee has created the following outline of the fracking process and its potential health effects.

In Canada approximately 27 trillion cubic metres of natural gas exist in traditionally inaccessible tight shale formations. These exist about 2 kilometres below the surface in BC, with the majority of deposits in the Montney Basin near Dawson Creek and the Horn River Basin near Fort Nelson. To extract this gas, wells are drilled first vertically and then horizontally into the shale layer. After the wells are encased in cement, inch-long holes are blasted in the horizontal portion. Then the fracking process begins, with as much as half a million litres of water injected, under high pressure, into the shale layer. The water contains a mixture of additives designed to aid the process. Vertical fractures hundreds of feet long are created, freeing the natural gas, which flows to the wellhead with a portion of the injected fluids. Multiple fracs can be conducted per well.

The potential contamination of drinking water with chemicals used in the fracking process is often cited as the main health concern. While additives make up only 2% of the total flu¬id volume, this can represent 40 000 litres of additives injected per well. The chemicals used are widely variable, and while public disclosure of ingredients is mandatory in BC, proprietary claims and trade secrets are exempt. An analysis of 353 of these chemicals found that more than 75% could have respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermatological, and ocular effects; 40% to 50% could be neuro-, immuno- and nephrotoxic; 37% could be endo¬crine disruptors, and 25% could be carcinogenic.[1]

Obviously these chemicals are of concern, and contamination of a freshwater reservoir could be regionally devastating. Fracking fluid could enter drinking sources by ascending from the shale layer, as a result of surface spills and through improper disposal of “flowback” (Figure). While there is no documented groundwater contamination in BC from fracking fluid, an EPA investigation has found high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, and other hydrocarbons in Wyoming wells specific for both deep and surface routes.[3] Surface spills and im¬proper disposal are highly feasible in BC, especially given the vast amount of waste fluid (4.2 billion litres in 2009)[4] that is transported and dispos¬ed of mainly in cement-lined underground reservoirs. However, it is unclear if injected fluid is of concern in BC as fracking wells are much deeper than in the tested area, and tightly packed overlying rock formations are thought to act as an impermeable barrier.

Methane contamination of drinking water reservoirs has been documented in fracking-rich areas of the US,[5] leading to dramatic videos of seemingly ignitable tap water. However, the mechanism of entry and ad¬verse effects of methane are unclear—while it is an asphyxiant, explosive, and fire hazard in enclosed spaces, methane is not hazardous to ingest.

Submissions to the first phase of the BC review identified a plethora of other concerns including freshwater depletion, air quality, social factors, and greenhouse gas emissions.[6] New technologies permit wellheads to be situated in close proximity to residential areas, and numerous reports of headaches, nausea, asthma exacerbations, depression, fatigue, and reduced cognitive functioning have been anecdotally attributed to noxious fumes and flare gas.

Another effect of the fracking in¬dustry is the impact on demographics. As with boomtowns of the past, the demographics of cities and towns in northeastern BC have changed, with an influx of young males and increas¬ed per capita alcohol consumption, crime, violence, and strain on local health care.[7]

By the end of 2014, reviews are due to be published provincially and federally, with two large EPA studies also set for completion.[3,8] The provincial review seems comprehensive in scope, with a “focus on potential impacts to air, land, and food quality and how these relate to public health.”[9] Fracking, while becoming a powerful part of BC’s economy, must be performed in a manner that ensures health is not affected. We welcome a thorough, evidence-based provincial review, free from industry bias.
—Michael A. Benusic
UBC MD candidate (2014)
Council on Health Promotion

This article is the opinion of the Council on Health Promotion and has not been peer reviewed by the BCMJ Editorial Board.

1. Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, et al. Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Human Ecological Risk Assess 2011;17:1039-1056.
2. Howarth RW, Ingraffea A, Engelder T. Natural gas: Should fracking stop? Nature 2011;477:271-275.
3. DiGiulio DC, Wilkin RT, Miller C, et al. Investigation of ground water contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming (draft). US Environmental Protection Agency. December 2011. Accessed 30 April 2013. most reliable soccer prediction
4. Horne M, Campbell K. Shale gas in British Columbia: Risks to BC’s water resources. Pembina Institute. 14 September 2011. Accessed 12 March 2013.
5. Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, et al. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:8172-8176.
6. Fraser Basin Council. Report to BC Ministry of Health: Identifying health concerns relating to oil & gas development in northeastern BC. Human health risk assessment—Phase 1: Compendium of submissions. 30 March 2012. Accessed 1 March 2013.
7. Goldenberg SM, Shoveller JA, Koehoorn M, et al. And they call this progress? Consequences for young people of living and working in resource-extraction communities. Critical Public Health 2010;20:157-168.
8. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources: Progress report. December 2012. Accessed 1 March 2013. www2
9. Government of British Columbia. Ministry of Health. Fact sheet. Phase 2: Oil and Human Health Risk Assessment of Oil and Gas Activities in Northeastern BC. 2012. Accessed 10 April 2013. www

●  Lewis, Mary Ann (Sept 30, 2014)

Disruption is a 52 minute video. Please watch it.

This video is science based. It touches on all the bases while making the facts of Climate Change understandable . We can all have our own opinions but not our own facts. Global Warming is the most significant threat to our children's future. We are already approaching 'non returnable' tipping points. This presentation takes us from the beginning of climate change awareness through to the UN's Summit on Climate, which took place in New York last week. Fossil Fuel use is the greatest contributor to global warming. We need to move off of fossil fuels and onto renewable, sustainable energy. The International Panel on Climate Change states that 80% of the world's known fossil fuel resources need to remain in the ground if we are to avoid global warming over the critical 2 percent rise by 2050. Fears are that we are already on a trajectory of 4 to 6 degrees rise. We need to stop fossil fuel extraction. Ban Fracking now in Yukon!! We have so very much to gain by avoiding this ruinous path for Yukon.

Yukon has many many advantages as a pristine part of the world, where water, environment, wildlife, have been preserved enough to be able to provide the world a showcase! We can become a model for Canada and the world if we place our efforts and resources into developing Renewable Sustainable energy. The knowledge and resources are available for us to choose a sustainable future, for the sake of our grandchildren and future generations.

●  Lawson, Pippa (Sept 30, 2014)

Given the current state of knowledge about the risks of hydraulic fracturing, as well as the fact that fossil fuel reserves underground are not going to disappear, I believe it would be foolhardy for the Yukon government to allow this technique of fossil fuel extraction at this time. A wiser approach would be to assess the experience elsewhere over the next ten years, and only then to determine whether hydraulic fracturing can be done safely in Yukon. We do not have enough evidence at this time to conclude that fracking can be done safely. Indeed, the evidence suggests otherwise - water consumption and pollution alone is a serious problem. More time and experience is needed before we can properly assess this disruptive technique of resource extraction.

Moreover, the First Nations of Yukon should be allowed to participate in decision-making on this matter, given its potential effect on the natural resources of their traditional territories.

I therefore urge the Yukon Government to prohibit hydraulic fracturing in Yukon for the time being.

●  krikorian, Cai (Sept 30, 2014)

I hope that the yukon government heends the recommendations from the numerous scientists and environmentalists and does not open the yukon up to fracking

●  Duguay, Alain (Sept 30, 2014)

Hydraulic fracturing is certainly not worth the risk of contaminating earth and water. Our efforts and energy should be put together in developing sustainable energy which is the way of the future. 100% AGAINST hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon or anywhere on the planet for that matter.

●  Bradley, Dorothy (Sept 30, 2014)

I do not want to see fracking happen in Yukon. There are too many documents stating that the water is lost or contaminated. There is too much evidence of distroyed environmental habitat. Trucking the natural gas to a process ing plant and then trucking it back here to use is a waste of fuel and creates green house gass needlessly. Do not allow fracking in Yukon.

●  Gilgan, Gordon (Sept 30, 2014)

Throughout these hearings, I have listened to what my fellow Yukon citizens have been telling you, imploring you, and threatening you, to do the right thing and recommend a complete ban on fracking in Yukon. You have also heard from First Nations, that they are opposed to fracking Yukon, that they believe that fracking Yukon would break the agreements with the governments of Canada and Yukon, negotiated in their land claims. The First Nations have made it clear that they will meet the government in the courts if they decide to permit fracking.

At this time, the premier and other government representatives are speaking before the senate attempting to remove any influence YESAA now has, stating that those who invest in Yukon need certainty. Investors will not come if the government continues to ignore the will of the people and the agreements with First Nations.
This committee has spent many hours over the past several years on this issue. I have spent a lot of my time over the past several years addressing this issue. We both have better things to do with our time and energy. Make no mistake, if your committee recommends fracking, or if your committee recommends a ban on fracking and the government ignores your recommendation as it has done so many times, the issue will not be resolved. The people who have concerns about this issue will continue to oppose fracking until Yukon is saved from this atrocity.

It is up to you now, to take this information and the very clear opinion of the citizens of the territory, and to consider it carefully as you draft a report to the legislature. Your report must recommend, in the strongest terms, a ban on fracking.
It is also important that the select committee spend 1 and one half minutes examining the attached video before they begin their deliberations on recommendations to government.
Thank you

●  Evans-Ehricht, Roan (Sept 30, 2014)

I am against fracking in the yukon we shouldn't bartardize the beauty land we live in for economic gain, there is so more than oil here!!

●  Hrenchuk, Charlotte (Sept 30, 2014)

I do not support fracking taking place in the Yukon. The Yukon could be a leader in researching and using greener technologies to generate power. Fracking uses enormous quantities of fresh water which is not returned to the hydrological cycle. It creates environmental degradation and does not provide jobs for Yukoners. It is not a winning proposition for the Yukon. Please follow the forward thinking of Nova Scotia and reject hydraulic fracturing being used in the Yukon.

●  Ross, V (Sept 30, 2014)

No fracking in the Yukon, please.

●  Burke, Corliss (Sept 30, 2014)

Almost 6000 citizens have implored the YG to ban fracking here. This is the highest number of signatures ever, on a petition in the Yukon. You have also heard that there is no support for the attempt of this government to calm the storm of resistance to fracking through the promise of regulation. We know that regulation is designed to ensure that industry can proceed in an unimpeded manner, and with impunity. Regulations have provided no protection to the water, the air, the land, the animals, and the people, in other Canadian jurisdictions, and in the US.
The economic arguments in favour of fracking, based on experience in other jurisdictions, are also hollow. The damage to roads, and the demands on infrastructure, along with the environmental consequences, have always led to a negative result on the balance sheet of economic costs and benefits. Industry promises jobs, and yet these are so few in number, and most are highly technical in nature, and of very short duration.
The most disturbing of all, though, should be the many comments that you have received about the erosion of democracy in this territory. First Nations and non-First Nations have stood shoulder to shoulder to put you on notice that if you do not ban fracking, there will be further actions taken. Those actions are underway now, in preparation for the terrible possibility that you make the wrong decision on this issue.
Other countries have partnered with industry to create jobs in the development and production of renewable resources, and Nova Scotia’s ban on fracking is courageous. Quebec has a moratorium on fracking, and New Brunswick had an election very recently, during which the Conservative Party ran on a pro-fracking platform, and was summarily defeated. I invite you to stop the adversarial process which has ensued here in the Yukon, and to work together in a democratic fashion with your constituents, towards a future which relies on renewable energy.
Lastly, I would like to change the tone of my comments here a bit. I have to say that I appreciate the opportunity you have provided, at the request of Yukoners, to make our views known to you. I appreciate that this exercise must have been difficult for you on both a personal and professional level, for a variety of reasons. In order to have any faith in this system at all, I have to believe that each of you has positive intent in the work that you do, and in the relationships you have with your family, your friends, and your constituents. Building on that intent, I ask you to uphold the fundamental premise of our democratic nation, by listening to what Yukoners are saying to you on this issue. A healthy economy for the Yukon, and the development of renewable energy here, are not mutually exclusive concepts.
I implore you to join with your constituents, rather than ignoring or opposing them, as they feel you have done. What a significant legacy that would be - to begin the cooperation around ensuring a healthy future for us all! I ask you to listen to the overwhelming message that you have received during the Yukon - wide hearings, and ban fracking in this territory.

●  Loretz, Patricia (Sept 30, 2014)

In my opinion, fracking would destroy the land and water, which in turn will destroy the animals that feed from that land. We require the land, water and the animals to survive on. Where do we turn when all is gone, for ourselves and for people that will come after us in the future.
It is quite selfish to just want the here and now and not look at the damage that will be caused and whom will suffer for it.
Would you be willing to eat from an animal that has fed from the land that you contaminated. Then why would you expect if from someone else.
Please say NO to Fracking.

●  Loretz, John-Patrick (Sept 30, 2014)

When is enough enough. Who is going to be brave and smart enough to say no to fracking and stop to play with nature and people's health. There are other more responsible ways with no risks involved . Who as a responsible person can say yes to fracking and have children. How about their future.It is frustrating to see that there is no Democracy in Canada where people can vote true Referendums and that the Politicians and big corporations have to listen to the people of this Country and not just to their benefit how to make the quickest money. Is Money more worth it then our Children's life. Say no To Fracking . There is only one Planet

●  Mowat, Paula (Sept 30, 2014)

My name is Paula and I am a long-time Yukon resident. I grew up in the Yukon and returned to live in Whitehorse following completion of my undergraduate degree. I am currently working on a graduate degree in public health, and will return to work in the Yukon once I am done.

I believe that the Yukon is not currently in the position to allow for hydraulic fracturing to be used as an extraction method. I would urge this committee, and the Yukon Government, to take a precautionary approach and either ban or place a moratorium of considerable length on this practice.

We do not have the capacity to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is performed correctly, in terms of monitoring and human resources with the knowledge base to do so. We do not have sufficient data on our water (in particular with underground aquifers and reservoirs), and therefore would be unable to know if/when something may have gone awry. While fracking has occurred throughout the world, there is inconsistent understanding regarding the short-term and long-term safety of this practice. The Yukon, as a more remote location, would need to consider if it has the capacity to deal with the possible environmental damages that could be caused through fracking.

I apologize for the brevity of my note, and wish I had more time to explain my position on this. I trust it is sufficient to summarize my overall thoughts by stating that I do not believe hydraulic fracturing should be allowed, at this time, and that much more scientific and social research should be conducted before this practice could be considered as an appropriate extraction tool. It may be that hydraulic fracturing is never going to be appropriate in the context of the Yukon.

I encourage you to think long-term, beyond the very short, very limited potential of any economic micro-boom that may be associated with fracking in the Yukon, to the long-term economic, environmental, and social impacts of pursuing fracking up here.

Thank you,

●  Dobrowolsky, Roma (Sept 30, 2014)

In am opposed to hydraulic fracturing due to concerns about the risks to our water. The technology does not currently exist to safely extract natural gas. In my opinion clean water is a more valuable resource than natural gas. I believe it is irresponsible to proceed with natural gas extraction in Yukon at this time.

●  Elliston, Jennifer (Sept 30, 2014)

I am strongly opposed to hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon Territory. I feel that the likelihood of potential risks far outweighs the positive benefits.

●  Loukras, Dale (Sept 30, 2014)

I don't think that fracking is good in the Yukon. Keep the Yukon wild and FRACK free!

●  Gilbert, Alexa (Sept 30, 2014)

The harmful effects to the environment and risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are too high. As a Yukoner who takes pride in our beautiful surroundings and natural environment I do not support fracking. We are very lucky to have all the pristine wilderness surrounding us that we do. It is something that collectively we need to protect, and stand up for. Few places in the world have as much natural beauty as we do. If we care for it properly it will be our greatest asset and legacy in the long run. I hope we think this through thoroughly because once the damage is done it is very hard to undo.

●  Rhein, Werner (Sept 30, 2014)

Honorable Select Committee Regarding the Risks and the NOT existing Benefits; this short video shows best what we would be up against if the environmentally criminal Oil & Gas Industry would get their claws into our beautiful Yukon.

The tailings in the Klondike start to grow green again after 100 years, the damage done to groundwater aquifers and surface water from fracking will never recover in 7 generations. This is the time span we have to think.

Please make your recommendations for NO FRACKING so strong that they become binding.

Existing contracts with NCY and EFLO Energy can be changed, thats what lawyers are for before to much damage has occurred.

If this Government wont do it, the next one will.

Remember we are still citizens in a democracy.

●  Maguire, Lillian (Sept 30, 2014)

I am not convinced that fracking is a safe and environmentally way to go. I fear contamination of our water table and disruption of our environment. I live on Horse Creek on the North Klondike Hwy. Please say NO to fracking!

●  Buck, Rosemary (Sept 30, 2014)

I do not support cracking anywhere least of all in the yukon? My two children and I attended the meeting in HJ last week and my son (age 8)was so worked up and told me that he can't understand why our government would risk our water and the lives of all the living things that rely upon it. I can't agree with him more. what do we have to do for this government to hear us?
I am not a politically outspoken person however I would attend many vigils in front of legislature
In order to make my point, essentially You are pushing law abiding people into thinking about I acting illegally in order to be heard. Please do not make this incredibly careless error with all of our land, you do not have the right nor the support from yukoners.
Thank you

●  Banks, Deb (Sept 30, 2014)

I am against hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. There is copiouos evidence indicating that hydraulic fracturing causes adverse effects to drinking water. the excessive amounts of water required for this activity should remain as part of the environmental cycle including waterbodies for aquatic life. NO to hydraulic fracturing.

●  MacKinnon, Sean (Sept 30, 2014)

Dear Committee Members,
As a Yukon citizen and person concerned about the local, regional and global environment, and particularly as a parent of two young children, I implore the Select Committee to make recommendations to place an immediate moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and to recommend subsequently developing legislation banning the practice of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon.

My concerns are many but primarily I have concerns about public control of public resources and about the particularly wide ranging economic and environmental impacts of this type of resource extraction.

Natural gas and oil (and minerals, etc...) are all publically owned resources and we elect representatives to make decisions on what actions to take regarding the resources. In this case it is blatantly clear that the majority of Yukoners oppose hydraulically fracturing for natural gas and/or oil and prefer to leave our resources in the ground - it is a collective decision by the owners of the resources. Because of this, Yukon citizens are directing government agencies and politicians to legislate that the resources remain untouched, in this manner (hydraulic fracturing) at least. There is no imperative to mine, drill, extract or exploit all natural resources and in this case Yukoners are choosing to leave the resources where they sit for a variety of important reasons. I urge and expect this committee to recognise this and to make appropriate recommendations to the Government of Yukon in this regard.

In the case where the Committee feels that the desires of a majority of Yukoners are not adequate to recommend a moratorium and ban on hydraulic fracturing, the environmental and economic impacts should be considered. The wide-ranging impacts of hydraulic fracturing include many of great concern such as:
- tremendously excessive use of water - the US EPA found that the volume of water required is between 200,000 and 37,000,000(!!) litres per well depending on well type
- inadequate means of treating highly toxic and often radioactive wastewater
- high impacts of multiple drill sites in close proximity, corresponding access roads and on existing infrastructure such as roads and bridges
- further anchoring our economy to fossil fuels at a time when transition to greater use of renewables is extremely important while at the same time a move to reduced greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to the future of our children
- Regarding GHG emissions, the US EPA has confirmed studies that concluded that lifecycle accounting of GHG emissions from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas can be equal to or greater than those of coal! This is due to fugitive emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas, methane. Fugitive methane emissions can be from 4-13% with about 8% being the point at which natural gas is equal to coal in this regard. Higher than that, the so-called clean fuel of natural gas is actually more harmful than coal. Below 8% natural gas remains frighteningly high impact as opposed to its carefully honed reputation
- Unfavorable economics. The low price of natural gas in the North American market does not support the high costs of extracting and brining to market hydraulically fractured natural gas. The means by which the price will be driven up is bringing this resource to the global market requiring environmentally damaging pipelines and energy intense LNG plants and export terminals. Once on the global market the value will triple to current global prices leading to greater profits for corporations but increased fuel prices for Yukoners.
- (potential) surface and groundwater contamination. Many cases of contamination have been found from Texas to Alberta to Pennsylvania - considering the value of water to our health and to society, we should not even remotely to risk this.

Even if there were no other arguments against hydraulic fracturing, surely the will of the people is more than adequate to inspire corresponding leadership from the politicians meaning legislating against hydraulic fracturing. Alas, as noted above, there are substantial other reasons to ban hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon.

In consideration of the above facts, I expect the Select Committee to make appropriate recommendations to the Yukon Government including implementation of an immediate moratorium and initiation of subsequent policy and legislation against hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon.
Sean MacKinnon

●  Sabo, Ray (Sept 30, 2014)

Members of the Hydraulic Fracturing Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input as a Yukon citizen. The current energy demand in the Yukon is such that Yukon Government is reasonably seeking ways to diversify their energy sourcing much like any growing business would diversify their products to attract a growing customer base. This is understandable. The current government's mandate, however, is that we are open to industry to bolster the Yukon economy. To reap the benefits of such growth, you need to ensure that the proper framework (i.e. power supply) is in place to accommodate the change. So, by looking into the potential to use what has been touted as an enhanced method of natural gas recovery seems logical.

What the government is failing to realize, is that this highly controversial process is relatively new and the science to back the process is still in its infancy. Much of the research that has been done has not yet occurred in cold climates where you have an additional parameter to circumnavigate which is permafrost. The effect of the well casings on the surrounding permafrost may lead to an expediting thawing process and potential risk to the well head infrastructures' physical integrity. A better understanding of how hydraulic fracturing works should first and foremost be evidenced by scientifically proven research down south prior to even considering it in the north.

In addition, by allowing Yukon Energy to construct the LNG storage facility and invest in natural gas turbines to produce electricity, you ultimately create a cycle of dependence on the product. Like any door-to-door salesman, the supplier simply needed to convince Yukon Energy to invest in the LNG at some prorated cost. Once the infrastructure is in place, the supplier could start to raise unit costs for the product up until the point where the Yukon Government decides to explore our own resources in the territory. This will be the natural progression and many Yukoners are not even sure whether they would be keen to support oil and gas exploration in their own backyard. All one has to do is look at aerial photography of the Horns Basin production (northeast of Fort Nelson, B.C.) to understand how substantive effects could be close to home. Why would we even consider hydraulic fracturing if the majority of the public is seriously opposed to the process?

Here are some additional questions to ponder:

Is the government going to implement some baseline water quality data (surface and subsurface) monitoring in the identified areas with known reserves prior to engagement in hydraulic fracturing? How many years of ‘full data sets’ have been collected and what would government determine being an adequate data set?

How will the Yukon government regulators ensure that the integrity of the wellheads are not compromised by induced and natural seismic activity while addressing the risk of permafrost thaw surrounding and between well sites?

How is government proposing to adequately assess the subsurface water flow in areas of interest to the oil and gas companies? As you may be aware, hydrogeologists have only been able to scratch the surface in terms of their understanding to subsurface water flows in the lower 48. We have another large limiting factor here in the Yukon with respect to the continuous and dis-continuous permafrost. Does the Yukon government even have an idea as to how they would approach this research? Do they have the capacity to do so?

What types of mitigations is the government proposing to implement regarding the disturbance to permafrost?

How will the Yukon government regulators ensure that the wastewater retaining ponds are sufficiently contained and do not seep back into subsurface aquifers?

The Yukon Government is by no means between a rock and a hard place. The opportunity is there to make a decision for the people of the Yukon by not supporting the use of hydraulic fracturing in our territory. Should they decide otherwise at this time, then we can be certain that they have nested themselves in the pockets of the oil and gas industry. Please take a good hard look at the pathway you are paving for future generations and ask yourself, "is this what my kids would want?"

Thank you for your time,

●  Jantzen, Roy (Sept 30, 2014)

I am deeply concerned about Yukon's venturing forward on fracking for natural gas. There are many other jurisdictions in North America and around the world that have taken a pause to look at the wider environmental ramifications of fracking. There are a myriad of reasons put forward to take that pause, such as contaminated water supplies, the amount of water used for the process, the chemicals pumped into the ground, and most recently minor earthquakes in some US states appear to be related to the process. Is this really where we think Yukoners want our future to lie?
I want our future to be a leader in renewable energy, in conservation of energy, and of supporting alternatives to fossil fuels. I want the Yukon government to stand by its 2009 climate change action plan and LEAD. Fracking is not leading. It is following the folly of others.
Please consider the overall long term infrastructure and design you are creating with this project. One that will last at least five decades. Look at the changes in Yukon's climate in your lifetime. Can you begin to imagine the changes to ecosystems in our territory in fifty years? Do you see that this contributes negatively to our ecosystems, not positively.
Please get back to the design table and consider what it would take to truly lead and show others in the country what can be done for people today, and for our children tomorrow.
Thank you,

●  Snowshoe, Norman (Sept 30, 2014)

As Acting President of the Gwich'in Tribal Council, I would like to bring the following motion to the attention of the members of the sub-committee.

The Gwich'in Tribal Council, owners of numerous parcels of settlement lands in the Peel watershed region of the Yukon, has been directed as follows by the delegates of the 2014 Gwich'in Annual General Assembly. The motion below passed unanimously on August 21, 2014.


RESOLUTION # 006:2014 AGA Anti-Fracking

WHEREAS the Gwich’in have used and occupied our traditional territories since time immemorial and have a responsibility to maintain the integrity and wellness of the lands and resources and our way of life for future generations; and

WHEREAS the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement recognized the “special relationship” between Gwich’in people and the natural environment which forms part of our identity; and

WHEREAS the Government of Northwest Territories has not prohibited fracking in the Northwest Territories; and
WHEREAS Gwich’in people have concerns about fracking in the Northwest Territories and need to learn about the potential impacts since this may adversely impact our drinking water and natural environment; and

WHEREAS the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation passed a resolution in August 2013 to “oppose hydraulic fracturing in VGFN traditional territory until we accept it is 100% safe”;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Gwich’in Tribal Council 2014 Annual General Assembly declares the Gwich’in Settlement Region to be a frack-free zone; and

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Gwich’in Tribal Council 2014 Annual General Assembly call on the Governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to prohibit any fracking in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.

MOVED BY: Wilbert Firth _______________ SIGNATURE _________________________
SECONDED BY: Glen Alexie ________________ SIGNATURE _________________________


●  Gilbert, Scott (Sept 30, 2014)

I am strongly opposed to the idea of allowing hydraulic fracturing particularly in the Yukon. My first concern is the threat to our expansive and pristine water supply - both groundwater and surface waters. These are a precious, world class resources and should not be squandered; they should be passed over intact for future generations to use. Secondly I have little confidence that the rabidly pro-development government we have would put in place regulations and enforcement to ensure that drilling and well casings were done to high standards. Thirdly the fugitive emissions of methane that are inevitably associated with well development, operation and abandonment would contribute to climate change - a side effect we can not afford.

I urge your Committee to adopt the precautionary principle and implement a ban on hydraulic fracturing for at least a decade until we have a better understanding of the risks. I would point out that the precautionary principle is a well recognized policy consideration (although foreign, it seems, to the current governments at the territorial and federal levels). The concept is enshrined in several pieces of Canadian legislation (e.g. Federal Sustainable Development Act, ) as well as international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. The principle simply restates our grandparents' advice that it is 'better to be safe than sorry'.

In the words of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, "...where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation...". In this case I suggest the precautionary approach is to ban hydraulic fracturing.

●  Macht, Joel (Sept 30, 2014)

I would like to formally register my opposition to hydraulic fracturing for the purpose of extracting oil and gas products in Yukon. Having seen the devastating impacts of this practice on the quality of life, groundwater, landscape in areas where this practice has been adopted, as well as the tertiary effects of burning fossil fuels (climate change, pollution) I am strongly opposed to such resource development.

Yes, it's true that we all depend in some way on oil, gas and mining to sustain our existence in the north. However, we MUST see a future beyond the current practices of non-renewable energy production. There are alternatives. We must begin to cultivate the political will to exploit renewables by taking a principled stand against going further down the dead-end fossil fuel path. Enough already.

From my perspective as a Yukoner, a parent and a member of a presently healthy community, the risks of fracking are far too great.

●  Rhein, Werner (Sept 30, 2014)

Thank you for having the opportunity one more time to make a comment to the Select Committee About the Risks and NO Benefits from Fracking.
This is not a mistake on my side I say this with a purpose. There is No Benefits from Fracking. Or have you heard or red out of the hundreds of comments anybody making a comment that there are benefits from Fracking?

I won’t tell you any more about the Risks that Fracking inherits this time and I know that you may disallow this comment because, it is in your opinion not directly related to Fracking.

But it is. It is the main reason that we have Fracking on this beautiful earth.

We have lost our Democracy or can anyone see Democracy in what is going on world wide these days.

Our Democracy got replaced with Corporatocracy.

Our so-called elected representatives in Governments allover the world, don’t represent their electorate anymore;
They follow only orders given by the BIG Corporations.

I know that these meetings are nothing more then a smoke screen or trying to pull the wool over our eyes. This Committee can give only recommendations to the decision makers.
Does anyone here think that a recommendation will change his or her already made up decisions?

But there are other ways to stop the total destruction of our environment.
WE the people of the land have to take OUR Democracy back and change the laws back to where they where once. Make new laws for the situations of todays life.

To protect the environment, to protect life, all life on this earth.

I know I’m not alone on this, people all over the world are standing up and start fighting to get their rights for clean water, clean air a healthy environment and a decent life, back.

I hope that the All members of this Committee put these facts into the recommendation they will give to the decision makers.

Werner Rhein
Mnt. Lorne

●  Rhein, Werner (Sept 30, 2014)

Dear Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing
I think it should be clear by know that Yukoners don’t want an Oil and Gas development in Yukon.

There is almost every thing said that could be about the risks especially fracking and there are no benefits for Yukon by going in that direction.

In the last two days I came across some significant arguments why Yukon should stop an oil & gas development in Yukon and here are the links to this arguments.

I’m not sure Premier Pasloski had a chance in South Africa to talk with Bishop Desmond Tutu, but I think he should have because of this;

Please watch and read this two very important documents and I can see another decision than ban oil & gas development in Yukon for you.

This has nothing to do with techniques or regulations this is only a moral decision for the future of OUR Planet.
Thank you for your time,
Werner Rhein, a citizen of this Planet.

●  rogan, Susie (Sept 30, 2014)

I have followed the debate on fracking and did attend a session put on by the government a while back. I talked to a government oil and gas person and he gave me a good run down on how fracking works and gave me his opinion which was that it is not particularly damaging to the environment, and that they would keep a close eye on things.

I was not at all convinced that fracking is acceptable for the Yukon. The cut lines for detonating the explosives to find the deposits and assess the ground were enough for me to seriously question the industry.

I oppose fracking in the Yukon due to above ground damage, the fact that it does force pollution down into the earth, and my belief that this will inevitably contaminate the environment; water included. You just do not force chemicals down into the ground and say, "Don't worry! It's safe."

●  Jack, Joanna (Sept 30, 2014)

I am writing to indicate my deep concern that the Yukon government is considering opening up the territory to fracking. As demonstrated by those who are pulling their investment dollars out of oil and gas, nonrenewable resources are not a long term solution to the challenges our future holds. Meanwhile, any activity that jeapordizes our our intact ecosystems and relatively pristine environment, while placing our wealth of clean, fresh water at risk should not be welcomed in this territory. I do not support the idea of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon and I would like to add my voice to those calling for a ban on fracking. Let's take care of the wealth we are already so fortunate to have.

●  Walker, Jim (Sept 30, 2014)

I urge the government of the Yukon to put a moratorium on any fracking in the Territory until more is known. Each week we are confronted with more and more instances of questionable effects of fracking on potable water supplies and even a possible link to increased seismic activity. Add to this the very recent reports that human activity have decreased wildlife populations by 52% world wide. To say nothing of the usual hurried access and infrastructure development that accompanies this sort of "gold-rush" extraction.

The oil will always be there; what is the rush to get to it immediately, especially with all the unanswered questions that attend it.

The measure of a sustainable government, especially one that espouses to "do things differently" is not how quickly it can jump on the "bandwagon of the day" but how much thought, analysis and foresight have preceded its activities - even moreso when negative impacts are a strong possibility.
Canada critically needs some real leadership in the field of sustainable development of resources. It's sure as Hell not getting any down here below 60.
The Yukon can be a leader and show some.
Put this on hold.

●  Markel, Rhonda (Sept 30, 2014)

Thank-you for the opportunity to comment. I attended the Haines Junction meeting and have looked at the online comments from the other communities. There appears to be an overwhelming consensus among Yukoners that fracking should not be permitted in the Yukon. I commented at the meeting in Haines Junction so I will not go into depth here with my concerns.

I feel that there is very little (if anything to gain) from allowing fracking to occur in the Yukon. Instead we stand to lose one of our most precious resources -water. Even if the waterless method of fracking were to be allowed we would be pumping toxic chemicals into the ground which could contaminate our water sources and impact plants, wildlife and people. We should not take a "go slow approach" and try it on a small scale in one part of the Yukon. If we try it and realize that it is harmful to the environment and our health we would be subject to FIPA should we try to impose additional regulations.

We have the opportunity to be leaders and join other jurisdictions (with foresight) and ban it from our territory. We can pursue other options for economic opportunities. We can invest in green energy as many other countries are doing and at the same time divest from fossil fuels.

●  Inkstser, Jody (Sept 30, 2014)

I support a ban on hydrologic fracturing in Yukon. I don't think LNG can be extracted in a safe and sustainable manner using hydrologic fracking. I'm concerned about the health impacts it can cause to Yukoners and the environment.

●  Rifkind, Lewis (Sept 30, 2014)

Dear Committee Members
I respectfully suggest that the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing recommend to the Yukon Legislative Assembly that hydraulic fracturing NOT be permitted in the Yukon Territory.

What is known about this process is, from an environmental perspective, extremely disheartening. Huge amounts of surface water is pumped underground along with a dubious list of chemicals and additives. This renders the water poisonous. Should the water seep into aquifers or back to the surface it will then go on to contaminate further water supplies.

While some of the water flows back to the surface, the rest stays underground. Thus the water is forever removed from the Yukon's vibrant land and river eco-systems. This is not acceptable. If water is to be linked to energy initiatives, far better for it to be used for small, smart, renewable hydro projects than wasted in single-shot 'fracking' projects.

To conclude, please recommend to the Yukon Legislative Assembly that hydraulic fracturing NOT be permitted in the Yukon Territory.
Yours truly
Lewis Rifkind

●  Handley, Tanya (Sept 30, 2014)

The benefits do not outweigh the risks. Fracking is the wrong path to take if we are truly concerned about our futures. Short term financial gain for a few members of society is not enough justification to go ahead with this. Stand strong.

●  McKenna, Karen (Sept 30, 2014)

This is a correction to my previous comment:
The Yukon is absolutely not ready for oil and gas development at this time, especially fracking. We do need a sustainable economy with long term jobs, which the oil and gas industry has not provided where fracking is now occurring. The rapid growth and expansion which goes along with this industry is not sustainable, it allows a few businesses to make big bucks, many others expand then close or go bankrupt as prices slump, it requires skilled industry workers from elsewhere and attracts temporary foreign workers, who all put more demands on our infrastructure while polluting the air and water environment, whose cleanup and effects which will be borne by Yukoners forever. Oil and gas is not a clean source of energy. Burning wells, water contamination and the smell driving through Fort Nelson help illustrate this fact.
Before we agree to any development we need to have baseline data on all water, surface and groundwater in areas and adjacent to areas where minerals and oil and gas is found. We do not know the complexities of oil and gas development in earthquake prone and permafrost affected areas. We do not yet have baseline data which we need: groundwater, earthquake, permafrost, surface water, natural radioactivity, soil, and wildlife data takes years to collect. Our future lies in clean water, air and environment which are becoming rare in the world. Our tourism industry, which is more consistent than mining as a component of our economy, is dependent on wilderness and wild spaces. First Nations and most Yukon residents value the wild spaces and want to protect those into the future. We need the best regulations to protect our Yukon wild heritage. The guidelines and regulations in BC and Alberta, suggested for the Yukon to follow, do not sufficiently protect our water and environment fo r the future. We need to know the amounts, concentrations of all substances added to any water injected into the ground or wells or deposited at the surface, and where all water is planned to go and where it does actually go. We need independent unprejudiced monitoring of all oil and gas development. We need to ensure the long term health of all Yukoners. Other countries eg Norway, Australia have better regulations. The recently modified streamlined Canadian Environment protection laws are designed to allow corporations, including global and foreign corporations, access to Canada’s resources without the guarantee of payment of consistent, sufficient royalties, and without assuming sufficient responsibility for any failure in wells or pipelines, spills, contamination, future population health problems in the region or bankruptcies, without sufficient benefit to Canadians who are assuming most of the risks of the developments and assume the costs of maintaining roads and other infrastructure, and politicians get to feel important. The experience from northern BC is definitely not one to repeat in Yukon. Our future lies in clean unpolluted water, air and wild landscapes that are and will increase even more in value as they become rarer all over the planet.
If we do not begin development right now, we will still have oil and gas resources to develop in the future for the benefit of Canadians after we have completed 20 years or more of baseline data collection, when corporations are willing to use the best technology known, don’t require reduced environmental standards and will maintain the clean water, air and wild spaces Yukoners and Canadians need for the future.
To Yukon’s decision makers:
Hydraulic fracturing is not in the public interest, please issue a long term moratorium on fracking in Yukon.
If despite people’s protests, you decide to allow oil and gas development and fracking, please ensure: That prior to any development, the Yukon has firm regulations which will safeguard our water and environmental and human health and which require monitoring by independent bodies; that long term baseline studies of existing elements and potential contaminants including all radioactive elements are completed before any development occurs so that true valid monitoring can be compared to the pre-development levels. Please ensure that a process is in place that requires any companies doing oil and gas development to provide for true long term stability, and that the highest quality equipment, materials and construction techniques are undertaken using the best stringent regulations. As a decision maker on this issue, you become personally responsible for any problems of environmental contamination or people’s health which have been brought to your attention and which occur as a result of your decision on this issue.

●  Rosie, Tom (Sept 30, 2014)

I am sick and tired of governments kowtowing to destructive resource extraction industries, using our tax dollars to support and encourage technologies that are increasingly being acknowledged as dangerous, outmoded, and doomed. If our government had any sense, it would be putting those tax dollars into serious research into and support of clean alternative energy sources in Yukon, not into the pockets of the oil and gas industries. This is the way of the future, and it's time our government turns its back on the past and gets realistic about how it moves into that future for the benefit of the environment and for all Yukoners.

●  Smith, Shelagh (Sept 30, 2014)

NO to hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. I encourage the Yukon Government to look at innovative, sustainable, safe, environmentally friendly energy forms. There are many innovative alternative safe practices that exist, create jobs and can contribute to the economy. Protect our water. Protect our land. Protect our future.

●  Rosie, Rhonda (Sept 30, 2014)

I find it bizarre that our current government is so keen to allow such a flawed technology into Yukon. The mass of credible reports on the dangers and ramifications of fracking elsewhere, not to mention the massive public opposition to it, should be enough to warrant a ban on fracking here. Why is this government so anxious to allow a technology that is guaranteed to disrupt and destroy pristine areas, consume vast amounts of precious fresh water, disrupt communities, and leave toxic messes and poisoned groundwater in its wake? Is it ignorance? Stupidity? Greed? Or - more likely - all of the above?

Future generations - if there are any - will shake their heads in disbelief that any government would allow such a shortsighted, destructive, toxic technology to be given free rein.

●  Njootli, Margret (Sept 30, 2014)

We, Vuntut Gwitchin have utilized the Peel Water Shed for Centuries and we intend to use this beautiful land for our future generations, and to retain clean water for our children and wildlife for ever. We have beautiful plants for medicinal use, etc. etc. Leave this land alone, as if development takes place I know there will no be restoration and/or cleanup after all the gas/oil destruction takes toll on one of the most and last untouch land. I read on one of your postures indicating Clean Air, Clean Water for our people's and wildlife future! This, we shell do as promise by that particular poster as advertised by YTG. Please put this into consideration as a priority for tourism economy and for our First Nation's culture that utilized the land for ever and we intend to take care of our land in the traditonal territory, in accordance the the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement. This Agreement takes precedents over any documents in the world, except for the "Laws of General Applications"!

For thousands of years our Elders who had passed on, had used the land, in particular the Peel Water Shed and in the Tombstone Territorial Park. These people had travelled on foot, boat and dogsled to visit one another, where they would trade goods, hunt, fish and pick berries and celebrated. These First nations still visit at the park annually to visit one another and to enjoy the breath taking scenery to live off the land by camping, picking berries and hunt for our diet. Please take this into consideration with content and respect. Thank you for letting me share my frustrations and views on this fracting business in our breath taking land.

●  Gilpin, Jim (Sept 30, 2014)

I believe it is premature to open the option for hydraulic fracturing in Yukon. Such activity should only be done if and when there is an acceptable understanding of the hydrogeology of whatever areas are under consideration. Even then, any drilling activity should only been allowed on lands in which industrial activities are permitted. This would require the prior creation of comprehensive regional land use plans, articulating the values and interests of Yukoners.
I can appreciate the desire for the oil and gas industry to explore and develop resources. However, the very process of exploring can impact other values, such as wilderness. Certainly society requires energy. And, it may well be possible in the future to develop gas resources in the Yukon. But this should only be done with an understanding of its impacts. I don't think there is an urgency to develop gas resources at this time. Perhaps 10 or 20 years from now we will have a better understanding of both the potential and the hazards associated with hydraulic fracturing. So, I would suggest a moratorium on fracking, with the possibility of re-visiting this issue in 10 or 20 years.

●  Price, Richard (Sept 30, 2014)

I do not support Hydraulic Fracking due to the known environmental risks, which are high. Second, there is already a glut of natural gas on the North American market. The risks to groundwater are serious and not to be dismissed lightly.

●  Baltgailis, Karen (Sept 30, 2014)

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding whether hydraulic fracturing should be allowed in the Yukon.

I oppose fracking in the Yukon for the many reasons that have been well documented in previous submissions to the Select Committee by members of the public: the unsustainable volume of water that is used by the process, water and air pollution, impacts on climate change from fugitive emissions, impacts on wildlife from access and pollution, economic impacts from wear and tear on infrastructure like roads, and impacts to our Yukon quality of life from greatly increased truck traffic and an influx of workers from the south.

The Select Committee is to be commended for hearing from numerous experts in a public forum. The testimony of all these experts (not including industry and government oil and gas proponents) reinforced public concerns about the impacts from hydraulic fracturing.
It is clear from this testimony that fugitive emissions are inevitable in the fracking process. It is also clear that information about Yukon aquifers is totally inadequate for us to have any faith that we can predict where contaminated water would flow, and that trying to obtain this kind of information would be prohibitively expensive. Baseline water quality information is also lacking, and would also be very expensive to obtain.

The expert testimony also clarified that failure of well casings is inevitable, whether sooner or later, which will result in water contamination.

The expert testimony made it clear that it is not possible to effectively regulate this industry due to all the technical failures and unknowns.
The experience of the presenters from the Fort Nelson First Nation provided a dire warning to Yukoners. It is not realistic to think that hydraulic fracturing could be kept small scale and well regulated. Once fracking arrives in an area it always spreads exponentially. I do not believe that Yukon people want our caribou and other wildlife to be decimated, and our air and water polluted, by this uncontrollable industry.

If fracking arrives in the Yukon we will become an industrialized landscape like northern British Columbia and Alberta. Our world famous natural amenities will disappear, and with them our thriving and growing tourism industry.

The extremely well-informed input from Yukon people to the Select Committee has been overwhelmingly opposed to allowing hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. Please do not assume that anyone who has not responded to the consultations supports fracking in the Yukon. Please listen to the hundreds of people who have taken the time to come out to hear expert testimony to the Select Committee, make their voices heard at community meetings, and provide detailed written comments, complete with references. Please listen to the thousands of Yukoners who have signed the petition against fracking in the Yukon.

To date the work of the Select Committee has been commendable. You have held public meetings in the communities that requested them. You have heard from experts and people from communities that are being impacted by fracking, you have visited fracking operations, and you have read enormous amounts of information. You have conducted a transparent process in which the concerns of Yukon people can be heard and read by all.

Considerable time, money and effort have been spent by the Select Committee and Yukon people on this consultation process. Please bring your consultation process to its logical, democratic and ethical conclusion: please follow the wishes of the majority of Yukon people, and recommend a ban on hydraulic fracturing to the Government of the Yukon.

●  Biggin-Pound, Stephen (Sept 30, 2014)

Thank you to the committee and staff for taking the time to review and process this input. I sincerely hope that the committee will consider this input fairly, and act in the best interests of Yukon citizens, current and future.

I do not support the fostering of a gas industry in the Yukon based on "fracking".

Many points have already been raised, and I trust that the committee will be diligently reviewing a large volume of technical and anecdotal information in making their recommendations. I'm going to take an economical angle in my comments, as that seems to be the one that has mattered most to our current elected government. My brief points are:
- The environmental, geological, and in fact economical LONG TERM impacts are not clear. This is risky business.
- I do not wish to invite outside corporations, who have no interest in the Yukon or its people, and who in fact have stated as their sole objective the generation of profit to outside shareholders, to come and make a profit off of us at no risk to themselves. The risk, economically, socially, and environmentally, is all on US.
- We have a world-leading opportunity to "go another road" here in the Yukon, avoid fracking and all oil and gas, and develop a LONG TERM sustainable energy industry based on renewable and clean energy sources. I prefer to use water renewably for Hydro generation, over throwing it away into fracking wells.
- The landscape scale infrastructure impacts are not only undesirable for Yukoners, but will negatively impact our valuable tourism industry. I have been through NE BC and portions of Alberta - the level of required infrastructure development is unacceptable to me (as well, of course, to our valued wildlife species). Tourism is a slow and steady source of income for the Territory, and has the potential to be truly sustainable in the LONG TERM. I am willing to forgo the more immediate economic benefits of oil and gas and fracking in favour of more secure and steady sources. Let's avoid the classic "boom and bust" economy of oil and gas development, and mining.
- The decision to begin oila nd gas development, and fracking in particular, is irreversible. The decision to NOT go there is entirely reversible. Let's leave this resource where it is for now, and delay any decisions with LONG TERM impact until we can be more sure of the benefits and impacts (or even better until newer technologies make gas obsolete altogether).
- Please refer to the concepts of "deferred reward" and "delayed gratification" for an understanding of the maturity and foresight required to ensure benefits for our own future, and our future generations. I ask elected MLAs and the government to look beyond its current mandate, beyond the next election, and to the future they will be creating.

We must have an economy here in the Yukon, and we should be looking for new opportunities. BUT, let's choose less risky economic "investments" than fracking.

Thanks for your time and the opportunity to comment.

●  Almstrom, Jim (Sept 30, 2014)

I am opposed to any fracking in the Yukon.

It makes no sense to take any risk at all when there is so little likelihood of any benefit. People who already have jobs or don't need or want jobs will not benefit in any way, ever. Those who don't already have jobs and want jobs are unlikely to get jobs as a result of fracking.

●  Sundquist Bendall, Celeste (Sept 30, 2014)

I am opposed to fracking in Yukon. Water and the pristine wilderness is Yukon's most valuable natural resource!
Let there be no regrets for decisions made that could affect future generations.

●  Mowat, Doug (Sept 30, 2014)

I am opposed to any fracking in the Yukon. Some of my reasons are: huge amounts of water used in the process; methane gas leaks from the drilling and extraction process; cut lines and other destruction of the environment (see the cut lines and the amount of land they take up as in the oil company’s work north of the Dempster); fly in crews with no benefit to Yukon; profits go south and the Yukon is unlikely to receive royalties; and we would increasingly lose control of our decision making in oil and gas development; the fact that wells quickly run out of gas or oil, requiring more and more wells must be drilled. The gas is not going anywhere and can be used in the future if Fracking is ever proved to be safe.

Some people believe regulation of the industry is the way t go. However as we see in BC with the Gas plants being planned, the cry from industry is that standards must be lowered and otherwise these firms will back out.

Once we let one company frack, international agreements mean others will have the right to come in and frack. We may have already lost our ability to control non-fracked due to the developments in north and south Yukon. I am afraid our Yukon Government has not read the EU- Canada trade agreement.

Fracking is such a bad idea; it is hard for me to believe the Yukon Party is considering it. My fear is that the committee is a smoke screen for them to slide sideways as they did on the peel and give up the territory to their influential industry friends.

I do remain hopeful that Fracking will be banned permanently.

Doug Mowat

●  Yukon Conservation Society (Sept 30, 2014)

Please find attached the Yukon Conservation Society’s - Submission to the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing.

●  Mckenna, Karen (Sept 30, 2014)

I am not necessarily against all oil and gas development, but the Yukon is absolutely not ready for oil and gas development at this time, especially fracking. We do need a sustainable economy with long term jobs, which the oil and gas industry has not provided where fracking is now occurring. The rapid growth and expansion which goes along with this industry is not sustainable, it allows a few businesses to make big bucks, many others expand then close or go bankrupt as prices slump, it requires skilled industry workers from elsewhere and attracts temporary foreign workers, who all put more demands on our infrastructure while polluting the air and water environment, whose cleanup and effects which will be borne by Yukoners forever. Oil and gas is not a clean source of energy. Burning wells, water contamination and the smell driving through Fort Nelson help illustrate this fact.
Before we agree to any development we need to have baseline data on all water, surface and groundwater in areas and adjacent to areas where minerals and oil and gas is found. We do not know the complexities of oil and gas development in earthquake prone and permafrost affected areas. We do not yet have baseline data which we need: groundwater, earthquake, permafrost, surface water, natural radioactivity, soil, and wildlife data takes years to collect. Our future lies in clean water, air and environment which are becoming rare in the world. Our tourism industry, which is more consistent than mining as a component of our economy, is dependent on wilderness and wild spaces. First Nations and most Yukon residents value the wild spaces and want to protect those into the future. We need the best regulations to protect our Yukon wild heritage. The guidelines and regulations in BC and Alberta, suggested for the Yukon to follow, do not sufficiently protect our water and environment fo r the future. We need to know the amounts, concentrations of all substances added to any water injected into the ground or wells or deposited at the surface, and where all water is planned to go and where it does actually go. We need independent unprejudiced monitoring of all oil and gas development. We need to ensure the long term health of all Yukoners. Other countries eg Norway, Australia have better regulations. The recently modified streamlined Canadian Environment protection laws are designed to allow corporations, including global and foreign corporations, access to Canada’s resources without the guarantee of payment of consistent, sufficient royalties, and without assuming sufficient responsibility for any failure in wells or pipelines, spills, contamination, future population health problems in the region or bankruptcies, without sufficient benefit to Canadians who are assuming most of the risks of the developments and assume the costs of maintaining roads and other infrastructure, and politicians get to feel important. The experience from northern BC is definitely not one to repeat in Yukon. Our future lies in clean unpolluted water, air and wild landscapes that are and will even more increase in value as they become rarer all over the planet.
If we do not begin development right now, we will still have oil and gas resources to develop in the future for the benefit of Canadians after we have completed 20 years or more of baseline data collection, when corporations are willing to use the best technology known, don’t require reduced environmental standards and will maintain the clean water, air and wild spaces Yukoners and Canadians need for the future.
To Yukon’s decision makers:
Hydraulic fracturing is not in the public interest, please issue a long term moratorium on fracking in Yukon.
If despite people’s protests, you decide to allow oil and gas development and fracking, please ensure: That prior to any development, the Yukon has firm regulations which will safeguard our water and environmental and human health and which require monitoring by independent bodies; that baseline studies of existing elements and potential contaminants including all radioactive elements are completed before any development occurs so that true valid monitoring can be compared to the pre-development levels. Please ensure that a process is in place requiring true long term stability, and that the highest quality equipment, materials and construction techniques are undertaken using the best stringent regulations. As a decision maker on this issue, you become personally responsible for any problems of environmental contamination or people’s health which have been brought to your attention and which occur as a result of your decision on this issue.

●  Zdybel, Katie (Sept 30, 2014)

I am strongly opposed to fracking.

●  McKee, Stacy (Sept 30, 2014)

There is hardly anything in support of keeping fracking out of the Yukon that I have heard that I disagree with. Many here have spoken from a place of knowledge and legitimate concern. I am not able to say those things any better than they have. What I do have to say is in regards to what happened to our family farm back in Alberta.
When we got our land in 1980 Oil & Gas had tested our farm and others surrounding us in southern Alberta. They announced that there was not oil and gas deposits in our area. Eventually we found water and had a well dug. That well, along with our slew, never went dry even in times of draught. No issues watering livestock. Now fast forward to around year 2000 when oil and gas suddenly came back claiming there was oil and gas in our area. Why would they all of a sudden be able to find it? They found it because they were fracking the land and what happens on the neighbors land affected ours. During this time and since then, when we have heavy rain years, the slew and well run dry. It is even worse during draught. But that no longer matters because my father now has to travel many kilometers to haul water for livestock. The animals can no longer drink the water because they get sick and die. The only difference has been the capitalization of Oil and Gas.
Kainaii Blood Tribe in Alberta had good water on their reserve until Chief and Council let them in. Now nobody can drink the water. This is real. There are many other stories out there. These situations I know because they affect people I know and love.
I challenge everyone on this committee to fast for 4 days with no food or liquid. We can talk, plead and beg you not to destroy the environment here but you will probably just pretend to listen or support a fantasy that underground fracking can be controlled. If you were to experience this directly you would know firsthand what it is like for all life. We can live 30 days without food, 4 days without water and hours without air. How can you justify in any way destroying life. Destroying the water. The “harper government” (not a grammar error this is how small this government is) has removed in one shot, the environmental law that has taken years to establish. No industry will ever have to be held accountable for their damage. They cannot be trusted. Any vote supporting fracking is supporting the sinister side of creation. When any one in government or industry can stand up and prove they can live completely without food or water and sustain themselves, only then s hould we ever say yes to fracking.
Can you live without food and water? If you cannot do this then why should anyone or anything in creation have to go without? Do you have no pity or compassion? Only a true leader would have compassion for all life and do everything in their power to support life. If you do not choose this you are not leaders and need to step down and let true leaders stand up for the environment and people.
All My Relations.

●  McFadyen, Melanie (Sept 30, 2014)

I strongly encourage the government to consider alternatives to fracking in the Yukon. Water is our most precious resource, and any risk to this is not worth compromising for short-term economic benefits. There is not enough research that demonstrates the risks of fracking, and in my opinion, the public has not been adequately informed. We need to protect our water and precious resources for future generations.

●  Dabbs, Paul (Sept 30, 2014)

For the past five years I have been the Chair of the Tagish Advisory Council. While I am not writing this as a representative of the Council , my viewpoint is at least in part based on what I have heard over this period. In that time the Council has been asked to comment on a wide range of issues affecting our residents and the local environment. In many cases these are very broad matters , going far beyond the borders of our community. They include Yukon Energy's proposed changes to the Marsh and Tagish Lakes water levels, oil and gas exploration, a water strategy for the Territory, a Southern Lakes Forestry Plan and now of course hydraulic fracturing. During the Council and public discussions on these matters , we have heard two recurring themes from our residents. The first is the sanctity of our water systems. Tagish is a community whose history and future is centred on the water which surrounds us. The second is the need for utmost caution in proceeding with any activities which may put the environment at risk. On several of these issues, the Council has advocated the use of the precautionary principle as a basis for any changes to our current regimes. Given what we currently know and perhaps more significantly, do not know about fracking, it seems totally inappropriate if not foolhardy to now
approve hydraulic fracturing within the Territory. Perhaps further research will provide definitive answers to the doubts which currently assail us, but that is certainly not the case as of today.
A second concern is that I have no confidence in the Government's ability to effectively manage any large scale resource development issues. We seem to be at a very early stage in our research, policy and regulatory development and would run the risk of being steamrollered by the push to extract and develop resources on the scale required by fracking.
Finally the irony of having these consultations at the same time as the UN Climate Change Summit has not been lost on a great many Yukoners. If the Committee is to do its work properly, it must look beyond the relatively narrow confines of the Territory.
Thank you for considering these comments.

●  Evans-Ehricht, Mark (Sept 30, 2014)

Honourable committee members, thank you for extending the opportunity to comment on the possible practice of hydraulic fracturing being authorized to occur in our Yukon Territory.

I suggest the practice be monitored in the next years to look for solid evidence that the side effects of the process are demonstrably minor in any harm to ground water.

The chemicals currently used in this practice are too uncontrolled and not well enough understood for the extent of the damage they may be doing directly to ground water sources.

The scientific knowledge of this practice is as yet far too uncertain to authorize its conduct in Yukon.

I believe that human ingenuity is a strong and positive force and given time and incentive will almost certainly solve this matter to much greater benefit by providing less harmful extraction processes.

In closing consider practices of placer gold extraction in the Klondike goldfields in the mid 1890s. Miners stripped all the hills for miles of trees to burn them to melt a small layer of frozen ground to try to release some gold. It was only after the trees were effectively destroyed that it was learned that simply applying water to the ground melted it faster and more effectively. Historical parallels cannot be pushed too far in aiding today's situations but they offer some help to thoughtful considerations.

If my submission is going to be placed into a category in this matter, it belongs in 'not allowing hydraulic fracturing' and could be more precisely placed in a category like, 'moratorium in order to monitor and examine its practices for risk reduction'.

●  Leong, Leslie (Sept 30, 2014)

The risks of hydraulic fracturing to both health and the environment are far too great relative to the benefits of more fossil fuel. I am severely concerned about potential consequences of this procedure in the following areas:
-contamination of ground water,
- depletion of fresh water,
- degradation of the air quality,
- the triggering of earthquakes,
- noise pollution, surface pollution.
All of these potential consequences pose unacceptable risk to our health and our environment.

●  Majiski, Joyce (Sept 29, 2014)

I would like to add my voice to those who are concerned about hydraulic fracturing. I don't believe it is in our best interests to pursue this method of extracting oil and gas in the Yukon. I am concerned about the amount of water that will be used for this purpose and the state it will be left in, once the process is completed.
I believe that we-you as government-need to put real effort into pursuing renewable and alternative power sources. Take a forward looking stand: be innovative and visionary in your approach instead of pursuing the same avenues for energy. We can do better!
Thank you

●  Sidler, Andrea (Sept 29, 2014)

Select Committee Members:
As a life-long resident of the North, I am writing to express my concern over and opposition to all hydraulic fracturing activity (also referred to as fracking) in the Yukon. I have been a Whitehorse resident for over 10 years but was raised in Atlin BC, where I was taught the importance of being a responsible environmental steward and how my activities impacted the health of the ecosystem around me. I am a strong opponent of fracking, because it has been repeatedly proven that the slurry chemicals injected underground, as part of the process, are responsible for irreversible environmental devastation. Furthermore, the cultures and livelihoods of northerners, both First Nations and non First Nations alike, are dependent upon healthy, functioning ecosystems. As such, it is critical to avoid the drastic, negative environmental impacts that fracking is responsible for.

Currently, the Yukon’s most important natural resource is fresh water. Specifically: Clean, unpolluted fresh water. Recent studies released from the USA, British Columbia and Alberta have proven the link between fracking activity and groundwater contamination. To date, the Yukon’s aquifers remain unexplored and unmapped territory. We do not understand how aquifers are linked, nor do we understand how they connect to our surface waters. Therefore, it follows that one contaminated aquifer has the real and probable potential to irreversibly contaminate others, as well as any connected surface waters. The Yukon’s plant, animal – both aquatic and terrestrial – and human inhabitants depend on clean water for survival; contamination of this lifeline will result in a devastating environmental collapse and change the territory as we know it. In the interest of brevity, I will mention but not expand on several other negative environmental impacts directly caused by hydraulic fracturing which I am gravely concerned about: increased seismic activity, gas migration, leaks and contamination, human health impacts, noise pollution, decreased air quality etc...

Interaction and a respectful relationship with the environment are integral to local First Nations and non First Nations cultures alike. First Nations cultures are passed down between generations through traditional stories and teachings, many of which involve animals, or their spirits, guiding humans through our journey of life. It is critical to the continuance of these cultures that First Nations youth have the opportunity to experience their animal teachers in the wild. This will not happen alongside fracking. Several First Nations have established successful commercial fisheries. The revenue generated is invested back into the community and used to provide essential services to its members. Polluted waters kill fish and subsequently the communities that rely on them. For the majority of Yukoners, resources harvested through subsistence hunting and gathering constitute a large part of our diet. For many, this ability to harvest contaminant-free food from the land is a primary reason for living here. “Contaminate free” will no longer exist. Additionally, the Yukon is gaining ground as a renowned ecotourism destination. Visitors from around the world come to climb our mountains, experience our wildlife, admire our
scenery, paddle and fish our rivers, breath our clean air and relax in the silence of nature. A fracked landscape would eliminate all of these activities and with it eliminate the livelihood of many Yukoners who rely on this long-term environmentally and economically sustainable practice.

Finally, by allowing hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction, we, as a territory would be choosing to engage in a self-destructive, non sustainable energy option when we have the alternative of exploring green energy solutions such as wind, hydro and thermal. We will not choose fracking. The future success of the Yukon does not lie in the short sighted “benefits” that fracking will bring to the territory. Instead, it lies in the long term sustainability that can only be achieved through responsible environmental stewardship, alternative green energies and through the protection of our most valuable and essential resource: clean water.

Thank you for not permitting hydraulic fracturing in our territory and thereby ensuring the continued health and sustainability of our communities and way of life.

●  Labonte, Erin (Sept 29, 2014)

I worked in oil and gas for a number of winters, the devastation that is out beyond the town limits of fort Nelson is tremendous. If we were to let fracking into out territory we would be giving something away that we could never get back, something that is unique, our wilderness, our remoteness. Our way of life is much too precious to sell to an industry that is not sustainable. We need to start looking into ways to integrate sustainable energy into our territory not something that we know has a shelf life, that costs billions of dollars for infrastructure and, is most certainly shortening the life expectancy of our earth.
We live in the Yukon for a reason, I truly believe if fracking were to made legal within the Yukon there would be a strong public outcry. I know there would be from me.
Thank you for considering my letter.

●  Man, Alex (Sept 29, 2014)

Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing? All of the risks will be within the Yukon. Most of the benefits will be to those Outside. Do your job and protect the interests of the people that actually live here. Don't mess with MY water. I did not agree to gamble with it.

Alex Sifniades
20 year resident

●  Huber, Peter (Sept 29, 2014)

More than 6,000 Yukoners so far actually put their signature under a petition: Ban Fracking in the Yukon.
These represent 6,000 potential voters and this should make you think.
Like many I am opposed to Fracking. We care about the land, because we don’t see a benefit in getting our land and water screwed up for some corporate oil company that wants to sell our gas to China, for profit. We talk about Fracking in the whole Yukon. That’s Northern Cross and Eagle Plains, that’s Kootaleene at Watson Lake, and that’s Whitehorse Trough, where we live, and where a moratorium will end in less than two years.
A government that’s facing so much opposition from its own population does not have the social, and it does not have the moral license to put our resources up for sale and allow Fracking to happen in the Yukon. We say: “We can’t drink the MONEY, we need the WATER!"
In fact, we are looking for politicians with a vision. So I want to challenge you: Assuming most of you are seeking re-election – come out with a clear statement on yours, and your parties, agenda on oil&gas before the next election - which starts now.
? Mr Tredger, Mrs Moorcroft:
Tell the public what an NDP government would do to attract, or to regulate, or to prevent oil and gas development in the Yukon.
? Mr.Silver:
We met in June 2013 as you were the only member of this committee at the time replying to a letter my wife and I sent you. I want to ask you again: where does the Liberal Party stand when it comes to Fracking in the Yukon? Make that clear – now!
? Mrs. McLeod:
As the chair of this committee you did not reply to a number of letters from the public. To the Yukon Party: Your government has for years been actively promoting the Yukon as an Oil&Gas destination, inviting the industry to submit request for postings – I’ve seen the ads in national magazines. At the same time the same Oil&Gas branch is in charge of regulating that very same industry. In 2012 all of a sudden we heard ‘surprise surprise, there are request for postings for the Whitehorse Trough submitted, but we can’t tell you who it is’. And now you sit in this Select Committee and evaluate potential risks and benefits of Fracking, asking Northern Cross and Oil industry officials (and in-officials) what benefits there might be in fracking.
To me there is conflict of interest! Yukon Party: please come out and have a clear statement on your Oil and Gas agenda. What do you want, what do you support, what are your goals? Fracking: yes or no?
? Mr.Elias:
I regret that you did not reply to my email in February 2014. Before seeking re-election may I ask you to please take elders from your riding (Old crow, which is downriver from Eagle Plains) on a charter flight to Ft.Nelson, and then explain to them what the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing might look like. Be clear!
? Mr. Dixon
I am sure that in your function as minister of Environment you will give hydraulic fracturing a close and critical look – but what will the minister of economic development have to say – which is you as well! Other industry will suffer tremendously from the destructive effects of Fracking to the land, infrastructure, socio-economic fabric.

As government member and as an MLA possibly seeking re-election you might want to contemplate on the following:
The government on Nova Scotia twenty days ago decided to ban Fracking in the Province. They did so, and I quote the Energy Minister from Nova Scotia, because “there is not a community in this Province where there’s a larger number of people pushing to allow hydraulic fracturing. The resources belong to the people of Nova Scotia and they get to decide how they are harnessed” After the public hearings have closed you and your colleagues will have to admit: the situation in the Yukon is exactly the same.
I cannot overstate the facts: All of you heard from so many people during those final three meetings in Carcross and Whitehorse who expressed their opposition to Fracking that ignoring this clear and loud message would be a declaration of bankruptcy to democracy in the Yukon. The way this committee was named (benefits and risks) falsely suggests that there might be a balance. There is none. People attending those meetings were wondering if there is ONE voice pro fracking in the hall, or NONE. At the final meeting, I heard, there finally was one, benefiting with am eventual job.
I urge this committee, whose members are elected representatives from the public:
Recommend a ban on Fracking in the Yukon
This will be good for you – because you finally listened to your people
This will be good for us
But most important: this will be good for the land and the animals and the future generations! Thank You!

●  Osborne, Debra (Sept 29, 2014)

I say "NO" to fracking in the Yukon.

It wastes and pollutes our water, destroys the land, has been proven to cause earthquakes (and we live on two fault lines in a known earthquake zone), and appears to have no value to anyone other than the corporations that access the natural gas for a short period before they move to another area to destroy.

Please do not show the typical short-sightedness of politicians who can't seem to get it that the people who live here are here because of the clean air and water, because of the natural environment and because they want to see this land remain a positive legacy for generations in the future.

Fracking in the Yukon: NO WAY!!

●  Millington, Janice (Sept 29, 2014)

While I understand the detrimental impacts fracking will have on our environment, I am not a specialist in this area. I am a naturopathic doctor and therefore am a specialist in human health, so will comment on that aspect.

It is scientifically proven that chemicals in the environment contribute to health conditions such as cancer, immune dysfunction, neurological conditions and hormonal imbalances, and it is well documented that chemicals contribute to basically all human health conditions. Therefore, I see fracking as a public health issue because the chemicals that will be released by such a process will negatively impact the health of Yukoners. There are many reasons to ban fracking in the Yukon, the effect it will have on our health is only one.

I recommend a ban on fracking in the Yukon.
Thank you for taking my comments into consideration.
Janice Millington, ND

●  driemeyer, Terri-Lynn (Sept 29, 2014)

I am opposed to hydraulic fracturing in the yukon. I am also wondering why we are still even talking about this we should be thinking of ways to use sustainable and renewable energy resources.You can call me an optimist but who knows maybe theres a way for people to make money, get energy, create jobs, while cleaning up the mess we have already made.
We should also be cutting down on gas and electricity and being less wasteful in general (i mean everyone).

And remember, the only cure for litter is you.

Start where you are, use what you have, do what you can

●  Guy, Thomas (Sept 29, 2014)

We are not living in an area that can quickly replenish itself, as it can further south. I have seen, in just a few years, the damage motor bikes and ATV's have inadvertently caused by going off trail - it is now sandy and may not recover for many years.
This is a fragile environment we are living in. I am stunned to think 'fracking' is even being considered for the territory, especially now, since we are aware of the problems it creates. This 'get rich quick' way of planning the future of the Yukon will not stead us well; we will make money, not for, but from the futures of the Yukoners of tomorrow, our children. Who will want to live here then? Clean water is a necessity for quality of life. It is not replaceable.

●  Whelan, Maryanne (Sept 29, 2014)

I think we should ban hydraulic fracturing in yukon because I have a grandson and I would like him to have clean drinking water and to be able to hunt, fish, and pick medicine from the land.

●  MacKenzie, Ann (Sept 29, 2014)

This is some thing we should not do.Imagine if our water was to be compromised,we are nothing with out our water.Let us use other methods to produce energy,like the wind and the sea,and other ways to use less energy,such as gas rationing, electric cars,small hydro schemes.

●  Outridge, Kim (Sept 29, 2014)

I want fracking banned in the Yukon.

Fracking poisons huge volumes of fresh water forever.

●  Burns, Bonnie (Sept 29, 2014)

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments.

The Select Committee’s mandate is to present a report to the Legislative Assembly on their findings regarding potential risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. Since the committee was struck I have researched, read and listened to various views regarding the practise of hydraulic fracturing. I concur with many others that the potential risks far outweigh any possible benefits.

I am a field biologist and a water quality specialist by trade with over 30 years of experience in the Yukon. I have tested many of the Yukon’s surface water bodies. I thereby feel confident in saying that the majority of our non impacted surface waters are safe to drink with little if any treatment, excepting natural bacteria. There are so few places left in the world that can make that claim, so it behoves us to protect this precious resource for all time.

Fracking not only has the potential to contaminate surface and groundwater with a host of undisclosed chemicals, it also requires vast volumes of water. For me, water withdrawal from the hydrologic cylce is one of the main reasons that hydraulic fracturing should not be permitted in the Yukon Territory.

Generally it takes between 2 to 8 million gallons (9 to 36 million litres) of water to frack one well. Depending on basin and shale conditions it can also take a lot more than this. I will attempt to put this volume into perspective. The flow of the Yukon River in Whitehorse in August was approximately 525,000 litres per second (2013 Water Survey of Canada data). So if you stood on the bank of the Yukon River at Rotary Park, looked across to the other side and counted off 17 seconds to represent 2 million gallons, and 68 seconds to represent 8 million gallons, the amount of water that flowed past you during that time would be required to frack one well (and a well is frequently fracked multiple times).

Even this wouldn’t be so bad were it not for the fact that the water used in fracking is, for all intents and purposes, removed from the hydrological cycle for an indefinite time period. It can take months for injected water to return to the surface and the amount that does come back ranges from 15% to 80% (Lane, 2013). The flow back and produced water that is returned to the surface is contaminated and through the research I have conducted, I could find no evidence of where this water has been successfully treated and cleaned for return to the environment. Hence the used water is either stored in huge ponds or injected back into the ground, which has the potential to contaminate surface water and groundwater, respectively, over time. Therefore all the water used in hydraulic fracturing is unsuitable for any other purpose. There have been attempts to recycle fracked water due to limited water supplies in some areas, however cleaning the wastewater is expensive and curre ntly it is often more economical to truck in fresh water.

We may think we live in a land of abundant water sources but with climate change (exacerbated by methane, a common gas leak of fracked wells) and the resultant diminishing of the glaciers which feed most of our surface waters, surface water quantity could decrease over time. Groundwater is also a water supply source for hydraulic fracturing, but we know next to nothing of our groundwater in the Yukon Territory. The Yukon Government has recently released a Yukon water strategy and action plan. In this plan they have identified the need to understand and mange the Yukon’s groundwater. Until we have a better idea of what lies under our feet in terms of aquifers, locations, depths etc, fracking should be banned.

One of the priorities of the Yukon Water Strategy is to promote the sustainable use of water. I suggest to the Select Committee that hydraulic fracturing is not a sustainable use of Yukon’s waters and should be banned. Instead of focusing on fossil fuels we need to pursue non-hydrocarbon energy sources, and use the fuel we have wisely. Conservation and wise use could counter the destructive development of oil and gas by fracking.

Respectively submitted,
Bonnie Burns
Yukon Resident since 1975

●  Dawe, Heather (Sept 29, 2014)

I don't agree with Fracking in the Yukon or anywhere. In Alberta you have to watch how much wild meat you eat because of all the poisons and toxins that our animals eat do to industrial wastes seeping into our rivers and lakes, soon we'll be a rich waste land with nothing to eat our cherish. You can stop this from happening to the beautiful Yukon territory. No Fracking ever Please be responsible and not blinded by greed.

●  Johnson-Ward, Whitney (Sept 29, 2014)

I am Whitney Johnson-Ward from Champagne,Yukon and I am member of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nation. I am going to be turning 23 years of age this October and currently enrolled in Environmental and Resource Science at Trent University.
I am writing this committee because I have many concerns in regards to hydraulic fracking, there is not enough information and secure research to state that it is not harmful. With the many outcrys and proof of what fracking has done to other peoples homes I do not see why the government is even considering this. Anyone cannot really believe that it is safe and will not have a negative effect on the communities, the animals, the plants, and the water. You have to be lying to yourself to believe that. It is something so new and has adverse effects in other areas I do not want to run my tap and be able to light the water on fire.
What about the future generation what would we be leaving them by bringing this in to our home with not truely knowing how it may affect all the forms of life. I have nieces, nephews and many young cousins the world is already crazy as it is the Yukon is growing and this would just make more insecurities for the future. Why are we trying to exploit every resource we have because its the Governments agenda? Because Mr. Paslowski's is only thinking about his personal resume? The people behind wanting to bring this in to the Yukon in not thinking about our health, the environment or the future generations. They are only thinking about their career and its confusing I don't know how people with children would even consider bringing this to their backyards.
I am not against everything I understand mining and that it is to do with almost everything we use this day in age but all in a responsible manner. Bringing fracking to the Yukon is not responsible I understand almost everywhere else there is a lot of use of LNG and fracking wells but I do not believe we need to follow them. The Yukon has so much to offer and a big partof that is the beauty of the land, it is changing a lot as it is.
I do not see the need to be greedy and jump into something that we can never turn around. We can't unpollute the water we can't take back whatever harmful substances may go out on the land going up the food chain. Once something is out in the environment there is no going back we can do our best to clean it up but everything in fracking can't turn that around. Do you want that burden on your hands when we have nothing when we can't drink our water, when the animals are poisoned? We have enough of a problem dealing with Salmon that so many communities relying on but you want to go risk their lives too. In my community we already can't drink the water and are on water delivery; I do not want this happening everywhere. I like going up the mountains and drinking fresh spring water, we live off what we are able to hunt in the fall. Do not risk mine or the generations after me livlihoods. Without the land who are we?
It is way to dangerous and I oppose it with everything I have. I beg you not to bring Hydraulic fracking or LNG extraction in any way to the Yukon. It is all our home and we value it so much I am so proud of where I come from do not take that away from me. It is our right and the people in the office should in no way be able to take that from us. Once their is this toxic crap here there is no going back do you really want to live with that or have lives of all kinds dying because of your poor choices.
This is being considered because the government in office only thinks about resources, money, and their private agenda. We would not benefit as people from this. It will not create many jobs and no one knows that type of work up here all the workers would be from down south. The money will just go right back into industry plus Ottawa decides what happens with the money not the Yukon. The only people is the greedy people sitting behind their desks not thinking about all of us out there who enjoy the land and clean water. No matter where you go you will find stuff in the water but at trace levels but there are toxins everywhere can we just not speed this up.
I will NOT let this happen in my home and I will do everything in my power to stop it that is why I am at school. I should not have to fight you guys to keep my home clean. How do you have any sort of concience or look at your children when you only are going to leave them a waste land.

There is no Planet B.

Whitney Johnson-Ward of Champagne,Yukon

Thanks for hearing me out and my father wanted me to put his name on here too.
Councilor Harold Johnson from Champagne, Yukon

●  Genier, Beverly (Sept 29, 2014)

I do not support fracking, under any circumstances.
I would like my grandchildren to have the same opportunities Mother Earth has to offer as I have now, such as fresh drinking water, wildlife, berries, medicinal plants and trees and the scenery!

●  Lalonde, Catherine (Sept 29, 2014)

While hydraulic fracturing may bring economic bounty to areas in which it is being used, I believe that the uncertainty of the impacts of this technology, both ecological as well as the social impacts of boom and bust set-ups in small communities, are not worth what fracking promoters are promising. I understand that as a northern resident I rely on fossil fuels for many things, something I do my best to counter-act by living minimally and trying to minimize my impact on a daily basis, but I am strongly against putting mega infrastructure and investments into a relatively new technology that uses copious amounts of fresh water mixed with a slew of chemicals to achieve extraction without real knowledge of the impact on the earth's infrastructure. Our governments should be working harder to develop resources which compliment our natural environment, not destroy it further.

●  Mercs, Kristina (Sept 29, 2014)

Hello Select Committee,
To put it plainly, the risks of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) are too massive, immeasurable and unknown to allow for it to take place in one of Canada's most naturally wild places. Short term benefits (some jobs, possible fuel) do not outweigh the loss of clean drinking water, undisturbed land and a sense of doing right by our climate. Yukoner's and our visitors who come to enjoy the land in our renewable resource trade of tourism, will not want to visit us if this land gets wrecked by seismic lines, well pads, and inevitable leakage of toxic chemicals into our precious aquifer systems. Taking a flight over northern BC and Alberta this summer, the frack lines were so numerous, I was nauseated by the impact to their landscape, with wildlife habitat being destroyed to an unknown impact. I beg you to heed the overwhelming call to BAN all fracking activities in the Yukon Territory. Take a leadership role as you have been given and return the news to government that ci tizens of the Yukon do not want to risk the future of our land. The secretive nature of ingredients to the fracking fluid are in the hundreds, include a myriad of poisonous substances and are unregulated as companies claim they are proprietary in nature and therefore do not have to be disclosed. The technology is revealing itself to be flawed, the wells will leak. Reports coming out of the southern USA are clear in the irrevocable damage that is being done. Lighting water on fire, poisoning animals and people, destroying the land. The clean and abundant water systems we have been blessed with in this Territory have been the lifeblood for First Nations for years, providing food, and transportation through her vast areas. For the rest of us who have chosen this place as our home, we need to protect the waters for our future, and the future of the next seven generations. Once they are polluted and poisoned, we cannot get it back. Say no. For all our sakes, please say no.
Thank you, Kristina Mercs

●  Bunker, Kathryn (Sept 29, 2014)

Please don't let hydraulic fracturing happen in the yukon. Through my research it seems that it has had a devastating effect on other areas that have allowed it such as BC. I am concerned for the negative effects it will have on our water, wilderness, health, economics, and the burden on our children.
Thank you for hearing my voice.
Kat Bunker

●  van Gulick, Judith (Sept 28, 2014)

I strongly oppose against allowing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in our Yukon. Places that have allowed fracking are all dealing with many issues relating fresh water quality. Fresh water is a hugely important resource for Yukon residents, and residents everywhere on this world. We cannot allow to have companies make this now drinkable fresh water into a cocktail of chemicals. Storing this chemical soup deep underground doesn’t make it less toxic. It means we cannot use this water anymore, not just us human beings, the same goes for all the flora and fauna that needs fresh, clear water to survive. Fracking in the Yukon is not worth the risk - we don’t need this industry, we don’t need the jobs, and we most definitely don’t need the risks to the environment (not to even start speaking of the financial risks). Please listen to the overwhelming majority of Yukoners that speak out against this practice. Other jurisdictions in Canada have said no to fracking, so have a few countries in Europe. Please think about the Yukon we have now, and the Yukon we want to live in, and the Yukon we want to leave for the generations to come.

I say no to fracking and urge the committee to not allow hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon.
Thank you,

●  Gartshore, Mary (Sept 28, 2014)

Dear Sirs,
It is my considered opinion that the risks of fracking far outweigh the benefits at least at this time. The price for LNG in China has even dropped and the price in North America does not in any way justify the cost to the environment and the pristine wilderness of the Yukon.
There should be a moratorium on fracking until the risks are much better understood. The damage to water systems, ecosystems and wildlife habitats is not worth the paltry amount that LNG sells for currently. We could revisit this in 10 years, certainly if it is a valuable resource it will be more valuable in 10 years.
Thank you for listening to and equitably considering my opinion.

●  Bonnefoy, Linda (Sept 28, 2014)

I am very concerned that the Yukon Party Government has expended so much time and public money trying to push through the Peel plan and fracking in the Yukon. Shame on the Yukon Party members and their supporters. The citizens of the Yukon have lobbied against and have provided the government with a signed petition of 6000 people protesting the development plans for the Peel. Shame on the Yukon Party! Look at all of the health reports...the health effects caused by fracking in other areas of Canada.... and the contamination of the water. This is so wrong! Listen to the voices of so many concerned citizens. Say no to the Yukon Party's revamped Peel Plan and for the sake of your children and your grandchildren say no to fracking in the Yukon Territory!

●  Scoville, Lance (Sept 28, 2014)

Texas is frack happy state, and now there are numerous, unprecedented earth quakes occurring in those areas where fracking is going on. How many more accounts and documentaries describing a wide range of environmental degradations do we need to know fracking is a hazardous technology? We will be sitting on time bomb. No fracking for the Yukon.

●  Gilgan, Gordon (Sept 28, 2014)

●  Phillips, Thane (Sept 28, 2014)

I do not feel that the benefits with fracking and the associated infrastructure are worth the potential environmental risk and damage. Fracking does damage to the ground water which is our basis for survival. Recovering hydrocarbons this way is not something that should be done in any form in the Yukon.

●  Christensen, Lisa (Sept 28, 2014)

I am against fracking in the Yukon. I do not believe fossil fuels are our future - we should be investing in renewable energy, mainly hydro at this time, and perhaps wind/solar combinations. The risks associated with fracking are far too great, one of which is contamination of water; and Yukon ecosystems and Yukoners would bare 100% of those risks. The Yukon does not even have legislation/regulation in place that would ensure safe monitoring of this industry operating here. For instance, private drinking water wells have no regulation at all, and many communities rely on this important drinking water source - if fracking were to proceed in the Yukon, who would ensure well water is properly monitored for regions in close proximity to fracking? Who would pay for that? Moreover, the vast majority of Yukoners would not benefit from a fracking industry here - a few corporate entities would. Sure some local employment might be gained, but it would l ikely go to specially trained workers from elsewhere. This gas is not going anywhere. In the future, less impactful means of extracting it may come available - but currently, the risks of fracking far outweigh the benefits.

●  Christensen, Michelle (Sept 28, 2014)

I am adamantly opposed to fracking in the Yukon. I live here with my husband and our 2 young children and we place an incredible amount of value on the wilderness here.

I understand that there must be a bit of a balance and that there is a place for some sustainable resource extraction. However, fracking has an extremely questionable track record in so many places, which is why so many provinces in Canada, and countries all over the world have banned the practice. From what I have heard the risks for human (ie ecosystem) health FAR outweigh the benefits.

We simply cannot allow fracking to happen in the Yukon. It would be a devastation.

●  Umbrich, Garry (Sept 28, 2014)

I am the president of Takhini Hot Springs Ltd. We are opposed to fracking for a number of reasons:

1. The underground hot water complex in the Whitehorse area is largely unknown but we do know that at there is a minimum of 14.7 million cubic meters of hot water that form part of the hot water aquifer that feeds Takhini Hot Springs. We know this from the geothermal studies that we have conducted under federal funds over the past 10 years. The calculation from the geothermal studies is simple. Just under 400 liters of hot water flow at Takhini per minute. That is about 200,000 cubic meters a year. The storage size of the aquifer is known to hold at a minimum about 70 years worth of water. The 70 years is a factual number as the water flowing at Takhini contains no enhanced level of Tritium, an element that has a natural background level prior to atomic testing (almost 70 years ago now), and all other surface waters around the planet have enhanced (i.e. from atmospheric atomic explosions) levels of tritium. In other words, the water flowing out at Takhini right now does not have the enhanced level of Tritium. That can only be the case if the water has been "in storage" for at least 70 years. I need to stress that this is the minimum size of the aquifer. It is just as likely that the aquifer is 5 or 10 or even 100 times larger than 14.7 million cubic meters. In other words, the water at Takhini may continue to flow without the enhanced level of Tritium for many, many more years. To put this number in perspective, imagine a lake that is 1 meter deep, 1000 meters wide (1 km.) and 14.7 km. long. That is the minimum size of the underground aquifer under Takhini and likely across the underground Whitehorse area. The maximum size could be many times larger, even larger than Marsh Lake and Lake Laberge combined. That is a lot of hot water ! Using fracking to extract gas in the Whitehorse area would have a high risk of polluting this aquifer, destroying the many, many as yet un-tested, un-used renewable opportunities to tap into this aquifer of rich, mineralized thermal water resources. I would like to point out that the most likely scenario according to geologists is that the hot water resources under the Whitehorse area are likely very, very deep. Experience from drilling in similar hot springs areas usually results in finding the hottest water about 1 km. or so down underground. Fracking could put all of this hot water resource at the risk of being forever polluted with a cocktail of secret chemicals injected into the ground and mistakenly hitting one of the many, many hot water veins that lay beneath us.

2. Fracking is part of the fossil fuels industry, an industry which is becoming more and more unacceptable. Why would the Yukon want to promote an industry that is increasingly proven to be dangerous to our existence on this earth. We know from science (the same science that makes your cell phone work, and you don't seem to question that your cell phone works) that carbon emissions threatens our very existence on this earth, yet we continue to stick our heads in the sand and pretend its not true. Come on, we are smarter than that! I don't need to say more, other than to say, read up on the science of carbon emissions, climate change, and what the world will look like for your great, great grandchildren (they will thank you for your concern, or they will curse you for destroying their lives).

3. Fracking is hugely subsidized. If the government asked for just $1 for every cubic meter of water that will be polluted with the fracker's secret cocktails of ingredients, then the largest fracked well in BC would have cost industry over $10,000,000 (that's right, $10 million) just for the water they used. That's because the largest fracked well in BC used 10 million cubic meters of water. At that price, the well would not have been produced, as it would not have been "economic". As our elected officials charged with the duty to use our resources wisely, what economic price would you put on 1 cubic meter of water (that's 1000 litres) in the interests of ensuring the public you represent receives an adequate royalty on the public's resources. Why should one industry be allowed to consume (permanently from what I understand) such volumes of water for little or no return to the public purse ??? What is your position going to be as managers a nd caretakers of our public resources? Are you going to give it to the oil industry for less than even $1 per cubic meter? Are you going to subsidize an industry that produces dirty energy, and not subsidize industries that produce cleaner energy? By the way, geothermal energy is considered probably the cleanest of all energy industries, with the lowest environmental footprint. Iceland took a national gamble on geothermal and has subsequently become one of the richest nations on the planet. I encourage you to go there and experience and see it for yourself.

Those are my top 3 reasons for being opposed to fracking. Takhini Hot Springs Ltd. is a responsible business that is contributing to a sustainable economy by developing the geothermal resources as part of a growing tourism business center. We hope you see the wisdom of preferring to work with renewable resources as opposed to working with an industry that has only one interest, to use our water for free, leaving it polluted for all times, and then leaving as soon as they have got what they came for ... it really is just a resource grab of our resources.

Thank you.
Garry Umbrich, President
Takhini Hot Springs Ltd.

●  Walsh, Bernard (Sept 28, 2014)

I Say No to Fracking
My name is Bernard Walsh. I am a student at Yukon College, taking an introductary program to Carpentry.

From the various public presentations, documented cases and discussions, I am convinced that fracking is harmful to our environment, health and society. I am horrified from what I have come to understand. Can you imagine turning on your tap for a glass of water, and only gas comes out? Madness, I say. Can you imagine an industry that refuses to divulge what chemicals it is sending down its wells, for fear of divulging trade secrets? Not accountable, I say. Can you imagine your next-door neighbour dying of cancer because that person was exposed to the carcinogens found in fracking water? Sad, I say. I am against fracking because it destroys the very essence of our being, for without pure and clean water, we are nothing.

Have we forgotten something? Martin Luther King Jr.’s, “I have a dream” resonates strongly in my being. I have a dream of one day building a small cabin on a beautiful river in the Yukon, where people may come to enjoy nature, find peace and tell stories of a world taking care of one another – all powered by solar energy and the occasional wood fire.
Sadly, that dream is being jeopardized by the present Yukon Party government lead by Darryl Pasloski. Their track record of not respecting democracy and the will of the people is cause for alarm. Witness their refusal to accept the Final Umbrella Agreement and protect the Peel. Witness its decision to construct a LNG plant in Whitehorse. Witness its flip flop on building affordable housing. Witness the debate in the Senate on the Yessa Agreement where Darryl Pasloski has publicly stated he would abdicate his territorial power, for reasons of expediency. Witness its inability to negotiate with Yukon First Nation’s governments. This is a government that neither respects democracy nor the will of the people. Consequently, am I to believe that what I have to say or what others will have to say at these fracking hearings will not be heard by the Yukon Party government?

What I can’t understand is how we have gotten to this point in time where the People feel powerless to be heard and respected.

Let’s turn things around. Democracy needs to be overhauled. Let us voice the real questions: What can we do today to lessen our immediate reliance on fossil fuels? What concrete steps can be taken to developing the technology and the use of renewable resources? This is the debate we should be having today.

Just this week, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made an announcement at the 2014 Climate Summit. Leaders from government and public and private sectors are committed to action on climate change.

But what is happening at home? I have several questions for the committee: Has the present Yukon government and community clearly established its objectives to reduce the threat of global warming? To what extent does fracking hinder this process? Another highlight of the summit made by the secretary-general was the announcement that there is “A new Compact of Mayors, representing 200 cities with a combined population of 400 million people, pledged new commitments to reduce annual emissions.” Was our Mayor Dan Curtis part of this compact?

Along with many other people I, am against fracking. Please make sure my voice is heard in the Legislative Assembly. As elected officials that is your job.

Thank you for having given me the opportunity to speak to you today at my preferred place of assembly, the Kwanlin Dun Centre, here in Whitehorse, Yukon.

●  Burke, Corliss (Sept 28, 2014)

I hope that the Select Committee is aware of the fact that there was almost no one in the hearings who was recommending regulation. Presenters continually reinforced the fact that regulation makes no difference in the damage that fracking causes. Talking to regulators in AB and BC is ridiculous, as one has only to look at the damage to the land, water, and air in those provinces. There is virtually no regulation in both of those province, and what there is, has been designed by the oil and gas industry. We do not want to follow the bad example set by these two governments.

Our government here is proceeding, with the help of Harper, to further reduce the ability of the environmental protection bodies, by making amendments to YESAA that will remove it as a check on an overzealous government and a balance to the massive lobby of the oil and gas industry. The hearings have clearly shown that there is no social licence for fracking in the Yukon, under any circumstance. Yukoners will continue to ensure that Yukon is seen as an unstable place for investment in fracking. We have no choice, if we want to avoid the financial sink hole that would occur if we allow this industry into our territory. We know that the promise of jobs is an empty one, and that the financial bottom line for Yukon will be a negative one.

If the Select Committee thinks that the message from Yukoners during these hearings was, "Go slowly, be careful, and get regulations in place first", then they'd better read the transcripts of all of the presentations again. The huge majority of Yukoners who have spoken at the hearings, along with 6000 others who have signed the petition against fracking, and thousands of others who just have not yet spoken up, will not accept fracking, under any circumstance.

●  Wedge, Fiona S. (Sept 28, 2014)

My name is Fiona Seki Wedge; I am a member of the Carcross/Tagish First Nation and the Daklaweidi clan. I would like to express my thoughts about hydraulic fracturing.
I think that hydraulic fracturing should not be allowed in the Yukon Territory. There have been significant testimonials from individuals who have worked for resource extraction companies in the North West Territories that were using hydraulic fracturing, and they have expressed their concern for the Yukon, and fears of exploitation and destruction of our pristine wilderness. The harmful ecological effects of fracking are numerous, and the long term or cumulative effects unknown. The Yukon is known worldwide for having clean air, water and intact wilderness areas that have made our name in the global community. Tourists come from all over the world to watch birds and wildlife, to fish, hunt and explore our beautiful boreal forest. The head waters of the Yukon River, which is home to our already declining salmon populations that so many are deeply concerned about is the southern lakes region of the Yukon. What will happen to them if we begin to contaminate ground waters with methane and a plethora of other undisclosed trade secret chemicals that will leach into the lakes and river systems? That is not to mention the harmful physical affects that these chemicals will have on human life. There are entire communities in the United States that have been forced to relocate, effectively becoming environmental refugees because of shale gas development in their neighbourhoods. Where will Yukoners go when we can no longer drink our water, or go outside for fear of suffering neurological damage?
The Yukon has always been renowned for its immaculate wilderness, unsullied by massive corporate development. It is our wealth, something that sets us apart from other places. We are unbelievably fortunate to live in such a healthy place. There are numerous families who have moved to Yukon specifically because they wanted to live in an environment that was conducive to raising healthy children. It seems as though the only people who are in favor of fracking in the Yukon are saying so under the pretence that it will be economically beneficial to the Territory. Is this really the truth? I feel that these people may not be educated on the risks versus benefits of hydraulic fracturing. They consider money above environment, even though fracking in the Yukon would not actually be that beneficial to our economy. Fracking requires skilled labourers that are trained specifically in their field, something the Yukon does not possess. Even if Yukon College started training people now i n this field of work, they would not be ready until after an influx of workers have relocated to the Yukon from the south, filling the need for employees. We already have a low unemployment rate as it is, we really do not need a few morally corrupt employment opportunities made available in the oil and gas racket.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper just recently visited the North, and was encouraging northerners to increase food security by means of more local agriculture. Food security has been a hot topic of late, and I fail to see how contaminating aquifers with unknown chemicals will benefit food harvesting and production. It is time for the Yukon government to stop letting the federal government coerce them into letting the north be exploited to support the south. This has been clear since Thomas Berger released his report on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry in the 1970’s.
Finally, water is fundamental to all life on earth. This fact alone should be enough to make the decision on whether or not to frack in the Yukon. There is overwhelming evidence to support the fact that hydraulic fracturing not only releases huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere, but contaminates ground water with chemical cocktails that remain secret to this day. Without clean water the Yukon would be uninhabitable. It is our most precious resource, scientists and many others are predicting that there could be wars fought in the future over clean water sources. It is ignorant and foolhardy to compromise this most precious element for the sake of financial gain.
I certainly hope that this select panel will employ their wisdom and good sense and decide to ban hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon Territory. Not only is it imperative to the conservation of the environment, but also to conserve the last remaining faith that Yukoners have in their government. After all, it is not only me and my children but you and yours that will suffer as well if you make the decision to allow fracking in the Yukon.
Thank you for your time and consideration, Fiona Seki Wedge

●  Hambly, Dave (Sept 28, 2014)

I went to the Saturday the 27th panel meeting in Whitehorse and was surprised and impressed by the ability and passion of the people speaking.

For years in BC the logging industry said their methods were sustainable and that the forests were safe and government allowed the mis-use of a public resource until enough common people fought for change. The mining industry complains of too much regulation and environmental safe guards but the public is left with clean ups like the BC tailings pond breach near Quesnel and taking care of chemical waste forever at the Giant mine in the NWT. Some Canadian mining companies pollute and ignore human rights to the limit they can get away with in developing countries. Exxon Valdez. BP's offshore blowout. Need we go on. So the scepticism that greets the oil industries claims that fracing is safe enough to use and that the water consumption is just the price required to move economy forward is well founded. Industry will take whatever they can get for profit and pay for as little of the damage as they can get away with. The executives of these companies have moved to som e other lucrative position and the ministers that held portfolio aren't in government by the time the damage is evident. I see in the news the Malaysian company that has proposed to build a LNG facility on BCs coast is now saying they want lower taxes or they won't build. Let them go. And say no to hydraulic fracturing until it has developed to the point it is enviromentally safe and the water it uses is as clean as before they used it. If that means never then never. The resources these companies want will still be here waiting for the day the environment and the locals don't get steam rollered so that corporations can make money.

●  Debreceni, John (Sept 28, 2014)

I wish to be recorded with a NO to Fracking in the Yukon.

Considerable evidence shows the risks related to Hydraulic Fracturing are too great to chance for a possible short term gain. As a long time Yukoner, I wish to state the importance of taking every measure to protect and ensure the safety of our environment. I feel the considerable evidence presented regarding irreparable consequences to effects from hydraulic fracturing -- here and worldwide should give all sufficient cause to say NO to hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon.

●  Debreceni, Nancy (Sept 28, 2014)

I wish to be recorded as an unequivocal NO to hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon.

After reviewing a very substantial amount of evidence and concerns raised regarding the potential for immediate and far reaching effects relating to hydraulic fracturing, it is clear the risks are too great to introduce this practice to the Yukon. Protecting the prestine waters and environment as well as the people living here must be a top consideration. As a long time Yukoner and concerned steward for our great Territory, I can not express strongly enough my opposition to Fracking in the Yukon.

●  de Graff, Nicholas (Sept 27, 2014)

To Whom It May Concern
I do not support allowing Hydraulic Fracturing in the Yukon Territory for the following reasons:

? Potential groundwater contamination;
? Requires large amounts of energy which is already in short supply on our independent grid;
? Surface waters that are used in the process is untreatable;
? Potential fugitive methane (GHG) emissions associated with hydraulic fracturing wells;
? Yukon currently has no regulations associated with hydraulic fracturing;
? Can’t control the pace of oil and gas (hydraulic fracturing) development;
? There is already an enormous amount of hydraulic fracturing in western Canada, developing the industry in Yukon is excessive and not needed;
? Few jobs created for those of us who already live here;
? Influx of people associated with the industry could stress social infrastructure (schools, housing, energy);
? Fractured landscapes (roads and drill sites) will have implications on peoples land use patterns, fish and wildlife;
? Potential air (flaring) and noise pollution;
? Increase in road traffic and collisions (people, fish and wildlife);
? Will promote further GHG gas emissions while stifling clean energy investment.

Nicholas de Graff RPBio.

●  Lord, Shirley (Sept 27, 2014)

Somehow, I have missed most of the meetings regarding hydraulic fracking but this doesn't mean I don't have something to add or am not paying attention to what is important. Just the little I know about it, is enough for me to respond with my own opinion of objection through information/knowledge. I wonder what kind of leadership would even allow or contemplate such a decision that would affect future generations, of Creation. That means not just people but all of Creation, the four-legged, the winged ones, the creepy crawlers, the fish, the plant and medicines, the watersheds that are already so precious worldwide. In Yukon, we boast of "Pristine Wilderness" but is it really?
Who do the laws really protect? Is it the industries or the environment? When we think of the fracking cocktails that are used which contain pure poison, such chemicals like uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde; would you like your grandchildren drinking this? Are the health risks believed to be so minimum that no-one wants to pay attention! I understand there are over 600 chemicals used in the fracking fluid; how is it not detrimental to our health? There is proof of the hazards already which are not talked about so much or so often; they include sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage which people have been diagnosed with after being exposed for some time to contaminated water from the fracking. I wonder what it does to the animals? A friend of mine told me a horror story which brought it all into perspective. They harvested a moose in the Ft. Nelson area about two years ago; it was filled with tumors, which were so disturbing, they calle d the game warden...who I might add brought "industry" with him. That meant the white collars who ran the show. The hunters were scared to even touch the moose for fear of catching something from it. It is a sad day when the animals have no rights especially when it comes to their health. Who will stand up for them? Someone has to. They too suffer at the hands of "Industry" and "Economic Development" every day. Why hasn't industry even mentioned the consequences to the animals? This is only one case but for every one we hear of, how many are there that we don't know about? How many animals go to these "licks" and suffer at the hands of the trusted politicians, the leadership who we put in power, thinking we will all be taken care of in a sacred and good way. Let's hope they make the right decisions for Yukoners. We know that the water that leaches out into the groundwater is also radioactive! We know that the greenhouse gases it releases contributes to climate change! We know there is a definite 1000 year span of damage to the environment after such abuse. We know we have a limited amount of drinking water worldwide that is very precious and we should take care of it. We are known as being "the last Frontier" globally and that's why we receive so many visitors in the Yukon, so let's act like we really are and be responsible in a manner that reflects such values and virtues as respect, care, fairness, love and nobility. With wisdom, let's choose the moral high road regardless of the cost and treat all of Creation with reverence; say "no" to fracking. We ask that our government move forward with integrity and make the right decisions.

●  Thomson, Jodie (Sept 27, 2014)

I understand the urge to attract businesses of all sorts to the Yukon and that we have a very precarious economic situation but wishing to develop hydraulic fracturing in the territory requires much more research than I believe has been done.

If we play our cards right, we will ensure that there is a chance for Yukon to be very prosperous but it cannot occur if we do not have access to clean drinking water. I believe that we should attract world class entrepreneurs and companies that are interested in building our community instead of simply extracting resources for financial gain. Companies that have little regard for our land and people are not the ones we should be courting.

I am by no means an expert and my testimony should not be regarded as such, but I would hope that my government is transparent and open about the risks that are involved for Yukoners. We are in a far better position to purse other forms of economic growth and energy harvesting and I hope that we reach further than the lowest fruit.

●  Dundas, Heather (Sept 27, 2014)

I do not support fracking in the Yukon. Please do not mess with our water aquifers. We need to think to the long term health and future of our population (human and otherwise). It is not worth the risk. I say no to fracking.

●  Johnston, Lois (Sept 27, 2014)

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and thanks to the Kwanlin Dün and Ta'an Kwäch'än Council for allowing us to meet here today.
Earlier this year the /Council of Canadian Academies released their report entitled "Environmental Impacts of Shale gas extraction in Canada". This lengthy report was commissioned by the Canadian Federal Government, Dept. of the Environment.

Throughout this report, the panel has identified many areas of incomplete scientific knowledge and understanding of the environmental effects of shale gas development. The panel cautions that "there has been no comprehensive investment in research and monitoring of environmental and health impacts" . It also states that "considering the impacts of shale gas on groundwater must be framed in the context of decades or even centuries and we must anticipate potential effects that are not currently observed because evidence is not being sought"(pg64). The panel also states… "claims there are no proven adverse effects on groundwater from shale gas development lack credibility for the obvious reason that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". (pg 7)

Because of the lack of research and of base line data, especially pertaining to water, and the high potential for contamination of our water, combined with the negative impacts on our ecosystems, Fracking should not be allowed in the Yukon.

With regard to economic benefits, the Academy looked at the European Environment Agency study (2013) entitled "Late Lessons From Early Warnings" which highlighted "numerous examples in which evidence of adverse environmental impacts from economic activity was discounted based on justifications that seemed logical at the time but turned out to be incomplete at best." The Academy report states that "these examples include factors that are relevant here, such as the tendency of advocates for new technologies and economic activity to assert that a lack of proof of harm is equivalent to a proof of safety."

There are many unanswered questions about the environmental, health and global warming impacts of shale gas development. However the Academy cautions that there may be many risks that cannot be mitigated. In my opinion, we do not need to do the fracking experiment here, and we cannot afford to do it here given the moral obligation to this and future generations to address the greater issue facing us – that being climate change and the urgent need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

●  Macdonald, Rick (Sept 27, 2014)

Water; abundant potable water is absolutely essential to all life on this planet. Without it, we die, so I can not condone any process, such as fracking, that would potentially threaten those essentials. Absolutely NO FRACKING should be allowed in the Yukon, or anywhere for that matter. Surely they can find a safer method of extraction.

●  Johnston, Sandy (Sept 27, 2014)

Thank you to the Kwanlin Dün and Ta'an Kwäch'än Council for allowing us to meet here today.
Over the past couple of years, like many other Yukoners (and most likely you on the Committee) I have spent countless hours trying to better understand the issues around fracking. This quest started a few years ago after a trip up the Alaska Highway when one late September night south of Fort Nelson my wife and I had to abandon our plans to camp at a favourite public campsite due to signs posted by Encana which prohibited unauthorized access and warned of dangerous sour gas. Upon our arrival back in Whitehorse, a quick web-search of "Encana" lead me to an article entitled: EnCana’s Cabin Not So Homey: Cumulative environmental effects – an unfolding and emerging crisis in Northwestern British Columbia’s shale gas plays. W Koop. 2010. The article was an eye-opener: an estimated 1.8 million cubic metres of water, 78,400 tonnes of fracking sand and 36,000 cu.m of toxic chemicals were used to frack 14 wells on one pad – a world record! Back t hen, it seemed oil and gas companies were quick to claim world records – and there seemed to be quite the competition between Encana and Apache!

My research into fracking revealed many issues some of which the Committee has heard and/or had experts present on:
? The huge quantities of water used in fracking mixed with silica sand or ceramics and laced with chemicals, many of which are toxic, that serve to inhibit rust, kill bacteria, reduce friction, etc. There are issues around the lack of baseline water and other environmental data and incomplete monitoring.
? There are major problems with well integrity and the leakage of wells resulting in water contamination. There are issues around cumulative impacts and the lack of monitoring.
? There are huge issues with fugitive gas emissions from leaky wells and from the infrastructure of the distribution systems;
? There are water contamination issues associated with flowback and waste water disposal: e.g. leakage of evaporation pits used to store flowback, deep well injections, how to deal with naturally occurring radio-active material.
? There are issues with the massive footprint left as the fracking operations march across the landscape: roads, borrow pits, stream crossings, pipelines, not to mention all the infrastructure associated with each well pad. Such development has fractured the habitat and has lead to the demise of wildlife such as the caribou herds of NW Alberta and NE BC;
? The speed at which industry progresses is mind boggling: speed is necessary due to rapid well depletion rates and the need to keep investors happy;
? The speed at which permits for water and land use for O&G development are just as mind boggling BUT there are serious concerns over the lack of adequate consultation, environmental review, monitoring and enforcement and the inability of regulators to keep up with the pace of development;
? There are impacts to human and animal health and concerns about long term cumulative impacts. Fracking fluids have killed fish and livestock; and have affected human health. However, here too there is a lack of baseline data and of monitoring.
? Earthquakes are associated with fracking and deep well disposal; but there is lack of data regarding effects on shale structure and well casing integrity.
? The linkages between fracking and LNG and the lofty targets for new exports have not been adequately explained: for example, it has been estimated that 50,000 new wells will be required to fulfill the volumes of LNG attached to export permits in BC. Most of this will have to come from fracked gas from NE BC in an area which the Committee heard is already described as an environmental disaster due to O&G development.
? There are many questions regarding the economics of gas and oil development and often overstated economic benefits.
? There are high maintenance costs to public infrastructure such as roads and health care facilities; costs which exceed royalties
? The list goes on.

From my research, I have reached the conclusion that hydraulic fracturing should not be allowed the Yukon; the harms associated with water use and contamination, and with habitat fragmentation are big concerns for me. For example, the chum salmon of the upper Porcupine in the Fishing Branch and the Chinook salmon of the neighbouring upper Porcupine tributaries depend on high quality water with adequate flows. What do we know about the interconnectedness of the aquifers from Eagle Plains and the adjacent upper Porcupine watershed? What impact will oil and gas development have on the over-wintering Porcupine caribou herd? What incentive will the US have to safeguard the calving grounds in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if they see the over-wintering habitat being degraded? Is it too late, though? Old and gas development on Eagle Plains is already underway.

But perhaps the biggest concern is over fugitive gas emissions and the major contribution to GHG’s and climate change. The failure of industry to contain leakage over decades suggests remedies to this are not likely to occur soon. The nature of shale gas extraction requires many wells to be drilled and there are already, and will be many more, pathways for methane to leak into the atmosphere. One of the experts that presented to the Committee, Dr. Chalaturnyk, gave no assurance that well casings will remain intact over future generations. Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are emphatic that green house gas emissions associated with fossil fuels must be reduced, and quickly. The warnings have been echoed time and time again – most recently by U.S. National Climate Assessment program, and earlier by the International Program on the State of the Oceans. Last week in Whitehorse, the Chair of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Progra m, Dr. Morten Olsen, described how climate induced changes in the Arctic are proceeding at unprecedented rates, and at rates much higher than anticipated.

Changes in the Arctic are accelerating into irreversible feedback loops, i.e. the more it warms, the faster it warms. The more the permafrost melts, the more GHG is emitted, resulting in more melting. The more the sea ice melts, the more the ocean temperature rises, resulting in more melting. The more the sea bed warms, the risk of melting huge deposits of methane hydrate increases- if it does, this has been described as a methane time bomb and you have been told about methane being a potent GHG. These changes are, and will, accelerate and drive global changes.

We cannot afford to continue this; we should not be venturing into new industrial activities that will only hasten climate change. The economic costs responding to climate induced natural disasters and the costs of trying to simply adapt to climate change are increasing significantly and will become unaffordable.

Fracking should be banned and our efforts spent instead on pursuing renewable options and developing economies based on those options. Time is ticking; future generations deserve this.

●  Griffiths, Christopher (Sept 27, 2014)

The evidence exists - and is mounting - that hydraulic fracturing is not a safe process, and results in serious environmental consequences. As such, I do not support it - and firmly believe that the government of Yukon should pass a law preventing the use of fracking anywhere in the Yukon.

●  Charlie, Lianne (Sept 27, 2014)

Dear Friends and Family in the Yukon,
My name is Lianne Charlie. I am the granddaughter of Big Salmon Charlie and Leda Jimmy from Big Salmon River and Little Salmon River, respectively. I am Wolf; as well as a beneficiary of the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation and a status citizen of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation. I was raised by my mother, a second generation Canadian of Danish and Icelandic ancestry. Although I was born in Whitehorse, I have lived most of my life in Victoria, BC, which is located on Lekwungen, Esquimalt and W_SÁNEC traditional territories. I am currently a second year PhD student in Political Science at the University of Hawai´i at Manoa.

I am writing to state that I most ardently oppose hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. I also wholeheartedly reject the very idea that the territorial government and its various committees can make decisions that will benefit our people, our future generations and our homelands. Therefore, I have chosen to address my testimony to my friends and family in the North. We have the potential to make power and wield it in ways that can protect us and all that we hold dear. We can do this by not entrusting these kinds of decisions to state and corporate powers. The territorial and federal governments, in concert with countless industries have done nothing but repeatedly violate and destroy our shared ancestor: the land. We have more than enough evidence now, to fully distrust them and their claim that they can make decisions for the betterment of our future.

As I sit here and try to articulate reasons as to why I am opposed to hydraulic fracturing, I think about my grandparents. They spent the better part of their lives living on the land, just as their ancestors did. Had history not played out the way that it has, there is a good chance that I could have been living a similar life. If the government, in hand with the Church, had not been so successful at stripping our communities of all that they have known to be true and if they had not been so successful at displacing and containing us, then maybe we all would have grown-up on the land. History continues to play out in such a way that maybe some of us might never get to live a life like our ancestors. But that does not mean that our future generations cannot live that life.

In order to ensure that our descendants inherit all the skills and knowledge they need to live full and happy lives that our ancestors will recognize, we need our land. We need to protect it. We need to know it. We need to love it. And, most importantly, we need to fight for it.

Hydraulic fracturing and its" benefits" will not make our communities happier or healthier. And it certainly will not strengthen our connection to our lands and waterways. It will do the exact opposite and it will further alienate us from all that we know, deep in our hearts, to be true about who we are and where we come from.

In solidarity with my ancestors and the future generations, I oppose hydraulic fracturing.
Lianne Charlie

●  Bradshaw, Gord (Sept 27, 2014)

Concerning "...the potential risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing..." it appears to me there are no long-term benefits. You can not turn to any news media these days without hearing about the threats to our species posed by climate change, and virtually everyone with the proper credentials believes that it is being caused by our use of fossil fuels.

To me this means that anyone who is promoting the use of fossil fuels is misinformed, to put it charitably, and figuratively holding a loaded gun to the heads of their descendants. In the future survivors will look back at the fossil fuel promoters of today with pity - or worse - for their ignorance.

●  Griffiths, Richard and Margaret (Sept 27, 2014)

It is timely that these Select Committee hearings this week coincide with the United Nations Summit on Climate Change. Welcoming delegates, the UN Secretary-General, Ban-Ki Moon said,"Climate change is the defining issue of our age. It is defining our present. Our response will define our future." There is no more apt expression of the issue confronting Yukoners. Our response to hydraulic fracturing will define our future, our relationship to the land and its people. Do we say NO to a dangerous, harmful process that will only escalate greenhouse gases and climate change or do we bury our heads in the sand and pretend we will not be affected?
The overwhelming majority of Yukoners who have addressed the Select Committee - by speaking at meetings, through online comments, hundreds of letters to our newspapers, public demonstrations, and the largest petition in Yukon’s history - that we don’t want hydraulic fracturing. There will be no "social licence" from Yukoners.
The reasons for this may be manifest but they bear a brief summary:
1. fracking contributes to climate change by continuing our dependence on fossil fuels. Yukon should be investing in renewable energy, rather than promoting the development of fossil fuels that will devastate our land and water and add to greenhouse gases.
2. fracking requires vast quantities of water which, once used, can never be returned to the hydrological cycle. This leads to the problem of wastewater disposal in storage tanks, large ponds (think oil sands tailing ponds leaking into the Athabasca River), or through deep well injection (in Alberta’s foothills this has led to low level earthquakes, but in landlocked Oklahoma and in Colorado (according to the US Geological Survey) this has resulted in wastewater migration and earthquakes measuring 5.6 on the Richter scale.
3. Moreover, the Council of Canadian Academies tells us that "natural gas leakage from wells due to improperly formed , damaged or deteriorated cement seals is a long-recognized but unresolved problem that continues to challenge engineers." This leakage "can increase greenhouse gas emissions." Added to this methane, a greenhouse gas 23-34 times more potent than carbon dioxide, is that produced by flaring. Measured over 20 years this methane is 86 times more potent than CO2, trapping even more heat in the atmosphere, a direct contributor too climate change.
4. the Council also asserted that "An undetermined risk to potable groundwater exists from the upward migration of natural gas and saline waters [from drilled wells] via complex underground pathways." They went on to say that monitoring this migration is "difficult" and "the potential! impacts on groundwater are not currently systematically monitored."
5. well casing failures. Dr Gilles Wendling told us that in Alberta, for example,more than 10% of the wells fail immediately and that all will fail in the long term. Dr Tony Ingraffea, the distinguished professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell, in a video interview on July 21st, 2014, maintains that it is impossible to engineer casing systems that are not compromised by the rigors of hydraulic fracturing, by the nature of the geology, or by the limitations of the materials being used and by an inability to resolve engineering complications deep underground.
6. shale gas development, in the words of Council of Cdn. Academies report, "alters the land and local hydrology through the construction of roads, pads, ditches and pipelines." To this list, we can add seismic lines. The Council goes on to say that "there has not been comprehensive study of the combined effects specific to shale gas, and some impacts are most likely to be long term."
7. The Council of Canadian Academies affirms that "the health risks of shale gas development are not well studied." The two chief medical officers of health with actual experience of shale gas, who appeared before the Select Committee described,in detail, the corrosive health and social impacts of development on community well-being and how the failure to collect baseline data on human health before development had made it even more difficult to measure the impacts on the affected population. Dr. Cleary, the Chief Medical officer of New Brunswick, urged us "to stall shale gas development" while Dr Badenhorst, CHO in northeastern British Columbia, having cited examples of health and social problems that have flowed oil and gas development, asked, "Why would you chase an industry that will cause social problems for your communities?"
This examination is of necessity brief and incomplete but it serves to highlight a key finding of the Council of Canadian Academies that there is "scientific uncertainty" because "authoritative data about potential impacts are currently neither sufficient, nor conclusive." This distinguished panel of scientists, which was commissioned by Stephen Harper’s former Environment Minister, tells us that there are many unknowns with regard to hydraulic fracturing. Who would enter into a harmful and dangerous situation, aware that there are risks and dangers, when not obliged to do so? The answer can only be the foolish or the naive.
Nor can one open the door to a little fracking. Given the costs involved in development only a large build-out with multiple pads will prove economic. Once permitted anywhere in Yukon, everywhere bids for oil and gas exploration occur will be susceptible to fracking. Yukon is bound by trade agreements Canada has signed with the United States and, as of two weeks ago, with the Chinese after the Harper cabinet, approved FIPA, the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. An American owned company like Eflo, with rights to the Kotaneelee, or Northern Cross - 60% controlled by CNOCC of China - could sue Yukon if an application of our already weakened environmental laws undermined their right to make a profit. Under the NAFTA Treaty, Quebec is being sued for $250 million dollars following its moratorium of fracking.
Let us not be so misguided as to believe that oil and gas development in the distant Kotaneelee or Eagle Plains will have no detrimental impact on us living in this city. Remember that former Energy, Mines and Resources Minister Brad Cathers only removed opening the Whitehorse Trough to bids from the oil and gas industry under intense public pressure in 2012. He was also very clear that this withdrawal was only until the end of the current Yukon Party mandate in 2016. Will the Whitehorse Trough be open to oil and gas exploration after 2016? Could hydraulic fracturing, if permitted elsewhere in Yukon, also occur in the Whitehorse Trough?
Nova Scotia’s timely decision to ban fracking should be a salutary lesson for us in Yukon. Andrew Younger, the Minister of Energy, recognized, "There is not a community in this province pushing to allow hydraulic fracturing." Mr Younger also heeded the expert panel that Nova Scotia had engaged to study hydraulic fracturing which recommended no fracking. He concluded that "The resources belong to Nova Scotia and they get to decide how they are harnessed."
Yujkoners deserve the same right.
As politicians, you serve Yukon as an honor and privilege, making it incumbent upon you to listen to Yukoners and not accede to the blandishments of the oil and gas industry. Do you have the wisdom, the strength and the courage to say no to fracking and to propose that the Yukon Party government ban its use in Yukon?

●  Crill, Martin (Sept 27, 2014)

I have masters degrees in both Environmental Management and Social Development. I work both in environmental protection and in heavy industry. I do not want, as it were, to go back to the stone age and consequently accept that resource extraction is an essential part of our economy. I reject the "NIMBY-ism" that sometimes characterizes popular local resistance to development projects. However, I feel that I must express my disapproval of proposals to use fracking in the Yukon. My reasons are summarised as follows:
1. The short- to medium-term environmental impacts are too severe,
2. The information gaps regarding the long-term environmental and public health impacts are too great,
3. Even if it were technically possible to apply engineering controls to eliminate environmental damage from the fracking process, YG's capacity effectively to monitor, regulate and police fracking activities are inadequate,
4. Though we will require petroleum hydrocarbons far into the future, it is time to start pulling back from hydrocarbons as our core energy source, rather than seeking out increasingly costly extraction methods,
5. The price of LNG is likely to continue to fall for at least the next decade, as shale gas extraction surges. I believe that, even disregarding the environmental concerns, the timing would be wrong. Better to leave it in the ground, wait for technologies to improve, and revisit the viability and sustainability of extracting the resource in the future - decades in the future,
6. I believe we would be betraying future generations if we incurred the environmental damage associated with fracking and prematurely extracted shale gas now.
7. In additon to the above concerns, there is one that is possibly of transcendental importance. I refer to the growing feeling among the public that the democracy for which millions have fought and died over the last century has been subverted by corporate interests. The primacy of public institutions is being ring-fenced by supranational legislative frameworks and trade agreements that threaten to give ultimate power to corporations - including "Big Oil", "Big Pharma", Big Food", and so on. There is growing suspicion that both our elected leadership at all levels and our public service have been co-opted to ultimately serve corporate interests above those of the citizenry. To allow fracking in the Yukon would, I believe, greatly strengthen this perception. Just as the stability and value of a currency relies upon the confidence it inspires in those who use it, so the stability and value of our democracy is founded on the trust the public places in i ts institutions.

I urge the legislature, therefore, to preserve both our environment and the viability of our governance institutions for future generations. Reject fracking.

●  Avison, Heather (Sept 27, 2014)

I am opposed to the development of the process of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from shale in Yukon, not least because of its environmental risks, including environmental contamination through waste water spills, the need for long term containment of waste water, fugitive emissions i.e. escape of methane and other hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, etc.--the myriad of risks are well documented. More importantly, I believe current and future development should serve to decrease our reliance on the burning of fossil fuels, a main driver of climate change, not continue to support it. Other countries and jurisdictions are choosing to increase their use of alternative energy sources rather than continuing in the fossil fuel paradigm. In the Yukon, with wise leadership, we could be doing the same.

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Sept 27, 2014)

Dear Members of the Select Committee,
After the comments I read this afternoon at the KDCC, in behalf of Frackfree Yukon Alliance, I personally feel the need to tell each members of your committee that my comment were not personal to the Good Yukonners in you. After all, we all have something in common and that is that our grand children will experience living with the consequences of fracking if it is put forward thinking it can be regulated.
Thank you.
Jacqueline Vigneux

●  Berkman, Marten (Sept 27, 2014)

Fracking poses hazards that are already documented, and hazards that we will not be able to ascertain until generations have passed after we pumped chemicals into the ground and destroyed the usability of water. I am honestly disgusted we even consider endangering the land and water for our grandchildren so we can fill our short term fossil fuel needs today. We need more imagination, and need to explore alternatives, and absolutely prohibit fracking in this beautiful and naturally vibrant (but fragile) land we live in.
Thank you.

●  LaBar, Yvonne (Sept 27, 2014)

Please add my name to the list for NO FRACKING in the Yukon. To little is known, and the risk too great to put our beautiful territory and all its citizens and wildlife in such jeopardy!

●  Chamberlin, Barbara (Sept 27, 2014)

Living in this beautiful territory is a priveledge. To respect it's rivers and waters and the animals in it is paramount to our survival. Clean water is also paramount. I do not want fracking here at all. Why are we not exploring wind and solar power? Clean renewable resources.


●  Parenti, Diane (Sept 27, 2014)

I am definitely opposed to fracking in the Yukon. There are so many risks, especially to the water systems. Water is a finite resource on the planet, and millions upon millions of litres of it would become unavailable to people because of contamination and/or pumping it back into the earth. This is completely unacceptable, in a world where many places do not even have enough drinking water, and crops are failing due to drought.
We need to focus on developing renewable sources of energy - hydro, wind and solar could all be done here. There is a growing list of countries, that are meeting more and more of their energy needs from renewable sources. The technology for these methods is out there, and we need to begin shifting the focus to these sources. There is also a growing list of countries, states, provinces, cities, etc. that have banned or placed moratoriums on fracking. I urge the government of Yukon to do the same.
Diane Parenti, Yukon resident for 40 years

●  Drury, Barbara (Sept 27, 2014)

I am absolutely against fracking in the Yukon. I would like to see the government educate the public to the need for greater austerity and consciousness when it comes to using power and fuel. I am also in favour of more initiatives for wind, solar, and water power for individuals and businesses to take more responsibility for generating their own power needs, plus putting power back into the grid.

●  Pollard, Lynn (Sept 27, 2014)

NO to Hydraulic Fracturing!
Even the possibility of harming our water source not to mention depleting it should be the only reason we need NOT to go through with allowing this process to take place. Water is our lifeline, it is our most valuable resource and we know this resource is depleting around the world lets not make decisions that can deplete it more, lets keep this resource safe not only for us but for all the future generations.

●  Keenan, Bob (Sept 27, 2014)

I believe that fracturing is dangerous to people, wildlife and the environment and should not be allowed in Yukon.

●  Graham, Colin (Sept 27, 2014)

Advocates for fracking will point to the study that says fracking itself does not pollute, it's poorly constructed or maintained gas wells that are the problem. (See .) Thus, they will argue, fracking can go ahead.

I draw the opposite conclusion and I hope you will too.

To keep gas wells from leaking is a well-studied and well-understood problem. If the gas companies cannot apply materials and procedures known to prevent leaks in their American wells, how can we trust them to deal with the new technique of fracking? And in the harsh conditons of Yukon? In fact, how can we trust them to give Yukon non-leaky wells of any kind?

Until the gas companies can get conventional wells right, we should not let them drill conventional wells - much less frack - in Yukon.
Thank you.

●  Schaefer, Tamara (Sept 27, 2014)

I have yet to be convinced that fracking can be done safely without the contamination of groundwater, or that the industry is able to effectively predict or manage the long-term effects of this practice. The potential damage to the health of our citizens and our environment, our territory's greatest assets, negates any of the financial benefits associated with our participation in this industry. With global warming rapidly becoming a reality, our government should be investing in more sustainable energy sources rather than scrounging for fossil fuels. We should not allow franking in the Yukon.
Tamara Schaefer

●  König, Sven (Sept 27, 2014)


●  Ouellette, Sarah (Sept 27, 2014)

Dear Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing,
Are you listening?

Yukoners are expressing a resounding "NO" to fracking in our territory.

Based on scientific evidence and countless sad stories, fracking is clearly unsafe and irresponsible. The risks (or more appropriately, damages) greatly outweigh the benefits.

It's time for the Yukon to be proactive and to brake our dependency on fossil fuels by investing in renewable energy sources.

Have the courage to make the right decision for Yukoners today and for coming generations - BAN FRACKING IN THE YUKON.
Thank you.

●  Westberg, Kathryn (Sept 27, 2014)

Please do not use fracking as a means of finding natural gas in the Yukon. Please start harnessing the power of the wind or the sunlight or something that is not going to destroy the earth. We need to move away from fossil fuels and away from mining and start looking at positive forms of energy such as air and light. Please don't do this.

●  Corry, Gayle (Sept 27, 2014)

 I don't think we should allow hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon since we still don't know what the long-term effects of this might be and there have been some major problems with it in other jurisdictions.

●  Voyot, Alexandre (Sept 26, 2014)

I do not support the use of hydraulic fracturing in Yukon. The risks that it poses to the environment far outweigh any benefits. Please...No fracking!!

●  Prokopchuk, Ernie (Sept 26, 2014)

Any decision with regards to hydraulic fracturing needs to be based on solid scientific evidence. There are many places in the world where this has been/can be done safely. The question is whether it can be done safely in Yukon. Is the geology right? Are there risks to ground water? Are their social/cultural impacts (okay, not science but still important).

My understanding is that with proper construction of the well, it can be done without harming ground water. To ensure that best practices are followed there needs to be a stringent regulatory regime in place. The companies that want to drill need to prove it's safe and then there needs to be severe penalties for any damage that is done. The gas is not going anywhere - there's no need to rush. Let's take the time to make sure it's done right.

There has recently been reports in the news about earthquakes related to the fracturing process. This has not been reported in all areas where the method is used, once again suggesting that some areas are safer than others for this. Where does the Yukon fit in?

A large problem is the amount of water used. Recycling and reuse of water must be a requirement of any hydraulic fracturing operations. We don't want to deplete territorial water supplies (ground water or other) nor contaminate it with improperly processed waste water.

Hydraulic fracturing should not be done too closely to communities or other residences. That's just a no-brainer. Nobody should be living next to a gas well...

The territory needs to proceed slowly and cautiously. Let's do it in the safest, most environmentally friendly way possible and let's do the science to be sure.
Thank you.

●  Vogt, Felix (Sept 26, 2014)

To the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to present to this committee at the recent Carcross hearing. Let me reiterate and expand on the comments I made at the Carcross hearing in this written submission.

Your mandate is to come up with a recommendation on hydraulic fracturing and report to the Yukon Legislative Assembly. You are to gain a science-based understanding of the technical, environmental, economic, and the regulatory aspects and relevant legislation and consider the potential risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing and whether it can be done safely. Further, you are tasked to facilitate a public dialogue, gather input and consult with Yukoners most likely affected by oil and gas development.

Let‘s look at the science aspect of energy extraction and production. Undeniably, science is a major tool currently driving the extraction of shale gas, a non-renewable energy. As the world runs out of easily extracted sources of oil and gas the industry utilizes increasingly complex science and technology to get to resources that are hard to extract. To extract shale gas is hard, extremely complex and the fracking technologies used come with considerable risks and a huge cost to the environment.

Science is also used to produce environmentally sustainable energy in increasingly large quantities. Canada already produces over 60% of its energy from hydraulic power (not fracturing). The sciences to tap into sustainable energy sources have greatly matured over the past 20 years and are still progressing at a fast pace. Many of these technologies are used commercially to convert these renewable resources into energy for our consumption. For instance, the European Union already gets over 11% of its energy from wind alone and in 2020 wind capacity will be installed in Europe to cover 15% of the union’s energy need.

In other words, while it gets harder, less economical and environmentally riskier to extract oil and gas it gets easier, more economically and environmentally safe to harness renewable resources to produce energy.

While the Yukon potentially has large quantities of shale gas it certainly has large quantities of renewable resources. I see no place for hydraulic fracturing in the energy vision for the Yukon. What I see is a great opportunity to invest in technology that produces environmentally sustainable energy. Leave the gas in the ground, let’s invest in using sustainable energy sources to cover our energy needs. The 2009 Energy Strategy for Yukon identifies the increased use and supply of renewable energy as a priority for the Yukon government, so let’s make it happen.

When the select committee deliberates whether hydraulic fracturing can be done safely in Yukon I urge the members of this committee to remember that, for key areas like energy resources, decisions can’t be based only on political expediency. It can’t be based on the prospect of potential short-term economic benefits and transitory job creation that hydraulic fracturing promises.

Rather, what is needed is a vision of the world we want to live in that looks generations ahead. It is our social, political, and cultural values that dictate decisions and recommendations on what technology we use, what risks we accept, which benefits we seek, what opportunities we pursue, and how we regulate our energy policy.

I ask the committee to listen to Yukon residents, use careful deliberation, a long-term vision, and recommend the ban of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. Making your recommendation is a big responsibility you carry. It not only impacts us and our environment now, it will impact us and our environment for many generations to come.
Thank you,
Felix Vogt

●  Staley, Rick (Sept 26, 2014)

No to hydraulic fracturing. There are too many unknowns to allow this to occur in the Yukon or anywhere for that matter. Why take a chance just for a little bit of oil or natural gas that is not going anywhere anyways. Maybe, better and safer methods will be found in the future to extract this product if needed. It is not going anywhere sitting in the ground. It seems absurd to me to suggest it in the first place. No way!

●  Cardinal, Philippe (Sept 26, 2014)

Please note that the following comments are addressed to the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing; they are however also addressed to all of the citizens of Yukon Territory

Here are my comments:
Yukon must ban hydraulic fracturing everywhere in the territory.

But before proceeding further, I want to make it clear that I am wondering why I should even bother to voice my opinion to a Yukon government that has already demonstrated that it does not listen to the people who elected it and even though it likes to give the appearance of doing so by holding sham public consultations where it pretends to listen to the people but even when the latter are overwhelmingly against what it proposes, this government has already amply demonstrated that it nevertheless goes right ahead with its own resources development at any costs agenda anyway—just as it did for example with the Peel Watershed.

In spite of all that, I wish to go on public record as being totally against any sort of hydraulic fracturing anywhere in Yukon Territory because it is environmentally unsound and far too dangerous and damaging and, moreover, Yukon does not even need it. In fact, it is obvious to me that it would not even bring Yukoners any meaningful benefits of any sort. The only real beneficiaries of fracking in Yukon Territory would be a handful of resources development companies, all of which are headquartered outside of the Territory and care not a whit about it.

What the Yukon Legislature should really be studying urgently is how best and how quickly we can seriously begin to develop renewable energy such as solar and wind. Our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and all of their descendants will forever thank us for it.
Thank you for receiving my comments, Philippe Cardinal

●  Kramer, Mike (Sept 26, 2014)

I am strongly opposed to hydraulic fracturing for both environmental and economic reasons. I think we could be doing much more in terms of reducing our energy demand and exploring alternative energies. These are the areas where I am hoping the territorial and municipal governments can provide leadership, support, and incentives. There is more to the demand side of energy consumption than CF lightbulbs. Thank you.

●  Gyorgy, Gabor (Sept 26, 2014)

Never ever!!!!
Fracking is creating the possibility of the potential poisoning our most important resource, and quite possibly robbing our future generations of a birthright we consider fundamental.

●  Suarez, Alberto (Sept 26, 2014)

Good morning, My name is Alberto Suarez-Esteban. I am a postdoctoral researcher at University of Alberta, but I am based at the Yukon Research Centre and live in Whitehorse (YT). I am also co-teaching in the Bachelor Science degree that University of Alberta offers in collaboration with Yukon College. In preparation for my classes in Northern Resource Management, I reviewed several peer-reviewed scientific articles on hydraulic fracturing. I strongly recommend you to read and take into account the excellent review on the biotic impacts of energy development from shale, recently published by Sara Souther and colleagues in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (

Most of the impacts summarized in this article has already been mentioned at the public hearing in Whitehorse (Sept, 25). Nonetheless, I believe that statements must be accompanied by objective data. I am sharing this with you to make sure that you do have access to objective data for this serious matter. Please find below a list summarizing the main impacts identified in this scientific review:

- Surface and groundwater contamination
- Diminished stream flow
- Stream siltation
- Habitat loss and fragmentation
- Air, noise and light pollution
- Climate change
- Cumulative impacts

As scientific evidence suggests, the negative impacts and risks of hydraulic fracturing significantly exceed the potential benefits. Technology and/or legal regulations cannot ensure the integrity of Yukon ecosystems, which provide essential services (including income) for Yukoners and visitors. Therefore, I recommend you to declare a permanent moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon Territory.

If you consider I can be of further help, please do not hesitate to letting me know. Thanks for giving the public the opportunity to participate in this process.

Biotic impacts of energy development from shale: research priorities and knowledge gaps

Yours sincerely,
Alberto Suarez-Esteban, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral fellow.
Department of Renewable Resources
University of Alberta - Yukon College

●  Jones, Rob (Sept 26, 2014)

Hydraulic fracture process is certainly a contentious issue requires significant research and debate. Despite the claims from the process / petroleum companies to the safety of "fracking" it is clear from the numerous communities and water tables destroyed after this process has been completed that there are challenges with this process.

Given the importance and sheer environmental scope that Yukon plays in Canada it would be a reckless decision to move ahead with hydraulic fracturing in Yukon without massive study and consultation with organizations that are not the producers or lobbyists for this platform.

Thanks for your consideration.

●  Graham, Amanda (Sept 26, 2014)

Frankly, the idea of fracking scares me to no end. There is no way to control enough of the process to make it a reliable technology for a place where people and animals live. The potential for the escape of dangerous chemicals and the contamination of the water table and the destabilization of the very ground itself is so great and its scale unpredictable in any meaningful way. How can we possibly justify that sort of contemporary damage to the environment. How can we leave that to the people who will love this place twenty, fifty or a hundred years from now?

●  Hiebert, Patricia (Sept 26, 2014)

The Yukon has been my home for several years. It is a healthy place to live, clean air, clean water. A natural that Mother Nature has given us. Lets keep it that way.

I am 100 percent against Hydraulic Fracturing.

Where fracturing has taken place things have been destroyed, including the well being of man kind. Once it is destroyed it is lost for ever. It isn't up to man kind to destroy the earth. It is the home of Mother Nature, our home, our job is to protect it and everything on it.

Hydraulic Fracturing should be banned. Where it has started it should be stopped immediately before the earth is totally destroyed. So what if the pockets aren't lined, Jobs lost well before you got the job you were looking for a job.

Pat Hiebert

●  O'Neill, Genevieve (Sept 26, 2014)

In countries where environment comes first, as well as the future of our children, governments have rejected Fracking.
It has been proven by many research studies that Hydraulic fracturing is dangerous.
Only countries where economy comes first, government have ignored facts about the consequence of Fracking, which includes an increase of seismic activities, contaminated water, long and short term health effects of air and water contamination and radiation exposure by gas production, and many other side effects.
If this government decide to destroy our territory for a few dollars by allowing Hydraulic Fracturing, will they be made accountable for this crime against nature and humanity?
Isn't it the responsibility of a government to protect its land and its people?
We cannot eat or drink Money, so if by allowing Fracking this government chooses the mighty God "Money" over our health, our food, our water and our land they will condemn our children to a very poor future if not death.
Do the members of this government want this to be their legacy?
Please listen to the Yukon people who do not want big companies who do not care about what they leave behind, to come and destroy our beautiful and wild Territory. Do not allow Hydraulic Fracturing in The Yukon.

●  dodd, Sheila (Sept 26, 2014)

Dear select committee, Please ban fracking from our territory. We have so many issues with mining here. As an owner of a property in Faro Yukon , I can assure you nothing good comes from it, just disasters that the Canadian people pay for for ever.

Please keep our water safe and our country as it is today. Don't risk our planet for conspicuous consumerism.

●  Bourque, Sally (Sept 26, 2014)

"No" to Hydraulic Fracturing!

Everything I've read and researched suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits. The bottom line SHOULDN'T be measured by dollars and cents; the long-term detrimental environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing isn't worth the short-term economic boost, not for us, not for our children and not for our grand children.

●  Ellis, Gabriel (Sept 26, 2014)

I say no to fracking in the Yukon. The environmental damage and risk is too high.

●  Kennedy, Kevin (Sept 26, 2014)

Dear Committee Members,
Yukon does not need to allow fracking.
We are blessed with many exploitable natural resources in our territory. It isn't necessary to use hydraulic fracturing to winkle out marginal sources of natural gas. This particularly true when weighed against the potential costs of water contamination, tectonic effects, chemical spills, and overall environmental damage.

Please listen to the majority of Yukoners who oppose this unnecessary and dangerous practice.

Thank you for considering my submission.
Kevin Kennedy Whitehorse, YT

●  Madsen, Polly (Sept 26, 2014)

The risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are too high. I am entirely opposed to it. For the sake of my two young children, who will deal with the aftermath of hasty and poor environmental decisions made now, PLEASE do not allow hydraulic fracturing to go ahead anywhere in the Yukon Territory.

●  Roe, Wanda (Sept 26, 2014)

To the Select Committee members:
I am absolutely against Fracking in the Yukon. I urge you all to say NO to Fracking & BAN Fracking in the Yukon. It is a wasteful process of extracting resources which defeats the purpose. Fracking would be DESTRUCTIVE to the fragile ecosystems & wildlife habitat of the Yukon. Let us protect some of the last pristine wilderness on the planet & learn from others' mistakes. As a longtime, year round Yukoner (since 1980), I will advocate for the protection of the wildlife habitat & pristine wilderness of all the Yukon. I am very disappointed that I have to fight my own Government to protect the environment. Yukoners did not ask for this & it is not in our best interests. PLEASE SAY NO TO FRACKING! I have provided a list of worldwide Fracking bans; let us join the Ban...

●  Suzuki, Troy (Sept 25, 2014)

Recently I heard a comment from one of the members of the Yukon's Fracking Committee that they had heard from both extremes sides of the fracking debate and they felt that the truth lay probably somewhere in the middle. This comment was a lazy, timid and chilling one. What if fracking is the new tobacco? What if all the science and testimonials against fracking is right? What if we start down a path that destroys both our water and land forever?
The panel in Nova Scotia that recommended banning fracking in that province consisted of people considerably more qualified than our own Yukon committee.
Please, you are playing an extremely risky game. I think that none of the members of the commission have the tools, understanding or right to wager ours and our children's future on this last gasp lunge for fossil fuels and quick money.
Thank you for your time,

●  Kuntz, Jennifer (Sept 25, 2014)

Please no fracking in the Yukon

●  Christie, Meagan (Sept 25, 2014)

Thank you to all of you for your hours of listening to Yukoners and your attention to an issue that is important to so many of us.

In my family we are an environmental scientist working for a private consulting company and a carpenter. If any household stands to benefit economically from gas development in the Yukon, it is ours. However, we recognize the negative impacts that fracking could, and almost surely would, have on the Yukon. I have a four year old son and I must consider what his life will be like in the Yukon as well. And we all have a responsibility to the land, water and wildlife.

I am no expert. However, I am concerned citizen who has been putting time and effort (which are precious for working mothers of four year olds) into educating myself by reading about fracking and listening to the experiences of people from other jurisdictions. You will be reading all the studies and reports and listening to people much more knowledeable than me. I won't go into details about all the social, economic, health and environmental risks associated with fracking. I have four points to make:

1. If we allow fracking in the Yukon we are throwing First Nations under the bus yet again and learning nothing from Canada's tragic history. CYFN and several of the individual First Nations have been quite clear about their opposition to fracking.

2. It is unfathomable to even consider allowing fracking before we have extensive, high quality data about our groundwater. To allow companies to work here without it is a free pass to ruin our water with no consequences and no liability.

3. We will have one chance to say no to fracking. If we don't there will be no stopping the train. The Yukon as we know and love it will be changed forever. However, if fracking turns out to be as economically viable as its proponents suggest we will have many opportunites to say yes to it. Like money in the bank (or actually, unlike money in the bank) our resources (both gas and water) will still be there in the future and will probably be even more valuable.

4. The people in this territory are getting very tired of spending time writing submissions and attending meetings and then being ignored. At this point in the Select Committee process it is very clear what the public has to say about fracking. NO! The government is going to face some extremely pissed off people if that situation arises again so soon after the Peel consultation and Yukon Energy's LNG plant.

Best of luck with your work. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

●  Bowen, Ann (Sept 25, 2014)

I do not support governments who invite industries that use fracking methods in the Yukon. There are many unknowns with this method of extraction and what we do know is not good. Please spend your time and effort on researching other means of renewable energy. It will be an unselfish act on your part and the generations to come will thank you.

●  Murray, Allen (Sept 25, 2014)

Please do not permit Fracking to destroy our home (the Yukon) for the short lived expectation of money. Money cannot be eaten, drunk or breathed. If the Yukon environment is destroyed through using Fracking there will be no more tourist spending their money nor will companies want to come set up their business in a polluted environment. Check out what has happened to the infrastructure of the areas where Fracking has already taken place--terrible health problems, destroyed drinking water, trying to find the money to repair the messes left behind when the Fracking wells give out and the companies move onto other places. Again, I urge you to ban Fracking from the Yukon.

●  Murray, Jeanette (Sept 25, 2014)

Would like to point out that it is wisdom to learn from others such as the Fracking that has gone on in Alberta, B.C. & the United States with the devastating results to the environment & health of the people & animals. Also the Yukon prides itself on how clean our air & water is and encourages tourists from all over the world to come spend their money here--that would dry up.. No one wants to come to a polluted environment for their vacation much less come to make the Yukon their home as so many have (included our family--came for 2 years in 1988 and we're still here). We love the Yukon--please do not permit Fracking to destroy our home for the short lived expectation of money. As the First Nation Elders say: One cannot breath, eat nor drink money.

●  Harper, Michelle (Sept 25, 2014)

Please do not allow fracking in the Yukon. The damage to our environment would be irreversible.

●  O'Donovan, Eleanor (Sept 25, 2014)

Having attended many of the public sessions at which various experts presented their views on hydraulic fracturing to your Select Committee and also having read a great deal of information on this topic and its impacts elsewhere, I am convinced that the risks far outweigh the benefits. We do not as yet know the long term impacts of this technology. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that detrimental impacts on water systems and the physical environments (seismic activity) as well as the negative impact on surrounding lifeforms are resulting from this process.
Therefore, I am strongly opposed to hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. I believe that it is not necessary and it would be extremely detrimental to the environment and to the physical health of our people.
I sincerely hope that the Yukon Territorial Government will follow the example Nova Scotia which recently implemented a ban on hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. I would like this committee will advise the YTG to focus on developing renewable sources of energy for the territory.

●  McCorkell, Aileen (Sept 25, 2014)

I attended as many of the public sessions on hydraulic fracturing at the Legislature as I was able to. I left with the opinion that we do not, as yet, know enough about the downside of this technology to allow hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. I am especially concerned about the incredible use and abuse of the water system that is necessitated by this technology. Water is also a finite resource and we must stop wasting and polluting it for the sake of short term profit. I am also concerned by reports of increased seismic activity in areas that have been fracked which had previously not had tremors or earthquakes. I would like the Committee to ban fracking in the Yukon. I would also like the Committee to recommend that as much time, effort and money be put into researching sources of renewable energy in the Yukon as has been put into researching fracking.

●  Brekke, Dave (Sept 25, 2014)

Listen to the people - their combined knowledge, experience and understanding is overwhelming. Yukon's water is a most valuable resource, continually increasing in value.

Granted, we could have some benefits from natural gas on a short term basis. However, natural gas is a limited resource with many harmful and dangerous effects on life as we know it in the future, that I believe you have heard many times.

To me, the LNG plant, with a very negative effect on the future, could have been stopped at the discussion stage if we had truly representative democracy. We could have had investment in renewable and environmentally friendly energy for the future.

The cause of this expensive exercise is dysfunctional democracy. The present electoral system gave us governance by a false majority government with 100% power representing only 27% of voters. The votes of 54% of the voters are not represented in the present House.

In a democracy, Opposition is supposed to hold Government accountable, but how can it when its unanimous vote has zero power and the false majority government has 100% power and is accountable to no one until their term of office is over.

●  Kovac, Leigh (Sept 25, 2014)

Ban fracking!!

●  Lovelace, Collyn (Sept 25, 2014)

I believe the risks outweigh the potential benefits and I would like to see Yukon stay frack free!

●  Pavlovich, Cynthia (Sept 25, 2014)


●  Mcclure, Rob (Sept 25, 2014)

There is a great deal doubt about the security of fresh clean water with fracking. The phrase "once poisoned , twice shy" should be used by the committee when considering allowing any fracking to occur. The experiences elsewhere in Canada and in the US where things have gone wrong and huge amounts of water have been contaminated , not just once, but hundreds if not thousands of times and some of these wells are not very old. Have we not learned from these experiences? These current and future failures must be taken into account and weighed heavily against any positive short term outcomes such as employment in drilling, making roads and providing services and short term supplies of gas etc.

We have an excellent tourism industry that relies on the absence of roads, noise, and polluted waters. We do not have a gas collection or distribution system - another set of roads and infrastructure that will interfere with residents and tourism pleasure of quiet and relatively untouched nature.

In summary it is a brutal technology that creates harm to people and the environment. There is little that the industry can do to mitigate the effects that in many cases will extend for hundreds if not thousands of years.

●  moylan, Kate (Sept 25, 2014)

Further to my previous comments, I wanted to make two more points, as follows;

I wonder if this committee will take the testimony of expert witnesses, and the Yukon public seriously? I notice that many of the comments are heartfelt and emotional. Does the committee accept these non scientific fact based testimonies, and if not, why not? Social science, psychological science and community wellbeing as much 'fact based' as hard engineering or physical science. I raise this point because one member of the committee, in response to my concerns about the process of taking comments at public hearings stated that they wanted to 'keep the crazies out'. What does this mean?

Secondly. the framing and language around this hearing is odd - specifically the terminology around, "Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing". Think about that title, for example, the implied meaning in the word, "benefits"? There is an implied assumption that there are benefits.

Third, the process for community hearings where folks have to address the committee is not altogether inclusive. Many people are intimidated by such tactics.

Thank you for the alternative method (written) to make comments!
Kate Moylan

●  Dawson, Kate (Sept 25, 2014)

Please no tracking in the Yukon. Thanks Kate

●  Traplin, Katherine (Sept 25, 2014)

I believe we should ABSOLUTELY be at the forefront of this issue here in Northern Canada and follow Nova Scotia and Quebec's lead's to firmly decide to protect our beautiful Territory. There is nothing safe about this technology and to pretend that Hydraulic Fracturing can be done without causing great irreparable damage is a farce.

I am 100% against Hydraulic Fracturing. Anytime. Anywhere.

●  Fox, Tena Marie (Sept 25, 2014)

I would like to submit my opinion concerning "Fracking" in the Yukon.

From everything I have heard and read, I am STRONGLY opposed to "Fracking". This practice of extracting oil and gas from the earth pays too high a price in terms of our environment. Not only affecting fresh water for human life, but for all life on our planet as we know it. Already many parts of the world suffer from lack of fresh water, food, etc. Canadians, Yukoners, human kind everywhere, need to protect our priceless fresh water resources, arable lands, and forests.

I say NO to "Fracking"
Tena Marie Fox - a Yukoner for 36 years

●  Perrier, Avoline (Sept 25, 2014)

No fracking in the Yukon

●  Stanley, Mike (Sept 25, 2014)

Ban hydraulic fracturing in The Yukon.
Have the courage to stand up and join the other Provinces that have already banned hydraulic fracturing.

●  Fulton, Zach (Sept 25, 2014)

BAN FRACKING IN YUKON. It is unsustainable and just another ploy for the oil companies to keep their exorbitant profits rolling forward. Yukon needs to be green and stay that way. We can create a green industry here without destroying the beautiful land we call home. Our population is so small we can safely power our needs through renewable energy such as solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, vanadium redox flow batteries to store the power through the long winters. We do not have millions of people requiring massive amounts of energy. We do not need fracking. The LNG produced here will be sold for peanuts on the world market and not provide Yukon with any economical benefit only an environmental nightmare to deal with going forward. BAN FRACKING IN YUKON!!!

●  Wykes, Jenn (Sept 25, 2014)

Do we really need public consultations? The public has been yelling loud and clear. We DO NOT want hydrolic fracturing in our backyard. Fracking amounts to short-sighted, short term gains with long term repercussions for our water and ecological resources. There are many examples of successful economies that boast a decent standard/quality of life and light footprints. Must we follow Alberta?

●  Barr, Susana (Sept 25, 2014)

I would like to make a few comments in regards to Hydraulic Fracturing.
No Hydraulic Fracturing of any kind in the Yukon please.
I don't know a single person who thinks Hydraulic Fracturing is a good idea. Don't ruin the Yukon please, we as the human race cannot afford it. Alternative green energy is needed and we are a small enough place that we can set the stage for others to see how it can work to the benefit of everyone!

●  Oziewicz, Richard (Sept 25, 2014)

I'll make this short. Any one who want's hydraulic fracturing is irresponsible and immoral. This is just another insane thing we are doing to this planet. I say NO FRACKING in the Yukon. NO FRACKING WAY and over my dead body.

●  Chiasson, Cindy (Sept 25, 2014)

I do not support Hydraulic Fracturing in the Yukon. I have lived here 44 years and love the land. I am tired of seeing Governments and big companies coming in and recking the land and resources that we have here. It is not good for the water systems that we pride our selves in saying that we have the cleanest water in Canada. How long will that last if we keep misusing it!!!.......I SAY A BIG NO TO FRACKING IN THE YUKON!.

●  Middler, Anne (Sept 25, 2014)

This is what I wanted to say at the Carcross hearing last night:

My name is Anne Middler and I am a resident of Tagish.

I have followed closely the work of the Select Committee and weighed the evidence. The only sensible conclusion to be drawn from this exercise is that fracking is not in the public interest, fracking cannot be safely regulated and therefore, fracking must not be permitted in the Yukon.

You have heard a lot of expert testimony over the past year. All of the evidence presented to you, except from industry representatives, supports this conclusion. I’d like to highlight one particular presentation from the first public proceeding.

Fort Nelson First Nation Lands Director, Lana Lowe and the Chief, Sharleen Gale, shared their first hand account, a cautionary tale of infringed treaty rights and the “environmental nightmare” that has resulted from shale gas development in their territory.

Their powerpoint presentation stated that Fort Nelson First Nation is “no longer able to manage our environment in a way that ensures the land will sustain us for generations to come.”

Another slide said that fracking is “undermining Fort Nelson First Nation’s ability to live off the land as we have for millennia – reduced access to wildlife, no longer able to drink from rivers and streams, harvesting of medicinal plants, fur bearing animals and game impacted by availability and contamination.”

Lands Director Lana Lowe talked about how prior to the fracking boom in the Horn River Basin, three of the most viable caribou herds thrived in their territory. But now these herds are endangered.

The Lands Director and Chief shared their nation’s experience with industry deceit and arrogance, government greed and regulator incompetence. From the outset, the First Nation’s objections to the oil and gas industry were ignored and industrial development proceeded in an irresponsible and reckless way on First Nation lands without their consent or input.

They are now struggling to ensure they have some say and control over the coming onslaught of more fracking that will be needed to feed the proposed pipelines and natural gas liquefaction plants that make up BC’s LNG export agenda. The intense development that has happened in the Horn River Basin since 2006 is a drop in the bucket to the ramp up and build out plan that will be needed if BC’s LNG export ambitions are realized.

The women spoke of how the Liard Basin, also within FNFN territory and reaching north into southeast Yukon, is still pristine and that they would hate to see what happened in their territory happen in the Yukon. They described fracking as a Pandora’s Box, which in Greek mythology is a small box that when opened, released all the evils of the world.

I share this story with you, because here in the Yukon, we can keep that box closed.

Water is our most precious resource and the source of all life. Fracking requires massive volumes of fresh water to be removed from rivers, streams, wetlands, aquifers and what industry calls “borrow pits”. Sand and chemicals, many we know to be toxic, are added to the water for fracking. Massive volumes of contaminated or “produced” wastewater result.

Whether this wastewater is “treated” (or, left untreated, rather) in surface pits, or reinjected deep into the earth, other jurisdictions are allowing the fracking industry to conduct a dangerous and foolish experiment. How will this contaminated water affect the land, the animals, the water, and the earth’s ability to sustain life now and into the future?

Speaking about the future, fracking accelerates climate change, the biggest challenge we face. Natural gas or methane is a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. At a time when the global community is mobilizing to urge our leaders to seriously address the climate crisis, contemplating further destabilization of our climate through fracking goes against what we know must happen next.

The definitive moment of this entire process for me came during the public proceedings when Rick Chalaturnyk, a geotechnical engineer from the University of Alberta whose research is funded by the oil and gas industry, responded to questions about well integrity from the gallery. He was asked about whether wellbore casings, the main pathway for migration of methane and other contamination, will remain intact for seven generations. He seemed to do the math in his head, then said a firm: “No.”

Another question to him was whether he agreed that future generations bear all the risk, to which he answered: “Yes, I do.”

You are tasked with looking at the Risks and Benefits of Fracking. What is the timeframe for risk? It appears that some people would like the statute of limitations for “risk” to be very short. To me, the timeframe or window of “acceptable risk” must not close – ever. We have an obligation to protect the land and water for future generations.

If we know that all well casings will fail and leak eventually, some immediately, and that as a result, drilling and frack fluids, radioactivity, and methane, will contaminate groundwater, rivers and lakes…. How can anyone consider that an acceptable risk?

We are here by the headwaters of the Yukon River. As someone who cares deeply about this land, I want to express my gratitude to the Carcross/Tagish First Nation government for its leadership in ratifying a motion to ban fracking in its territory.

I hope the select committee will recommend, and the Yukon government will do, the same.
Thank you

●  Stiltner, Ernie (Sept 25, 2014)

Fracking must not be done in the Yukon Territory.

Fracking is a needless exploitation of an endangered and nonreplaceable natural resource. Furthermore, fracking amounts to a quick fix of a serious social problem - the ongoing per capita increase of energy in an increasingly overpopulated world. That problem must be addressed by every country in the world before continuing to exhaust nonrenewable energy supplies and leave our children with an environment that is closer and closer to living on the edge of existance.

Thank you,
Ernie Stiltner Rocky Mountain Environmental Health Association

●  Foubister, Liz (Sept 25, 2014)

No fracking!

●  Barry, Fran (Sept 25, 2014)

Please. No fracking in my second home.:Yukon

●  Hardie, Don (Sept 25, 2014)

No fracting!!!
Thanks, DH

●  Leblanc, Steven (Sept 24, 2014)

please add my name to the list of people opposed to fracking in Yukon,
thank you,

●  Nemeth, Mike (Sept 24, 2014)

I am writing you tonight because I have heard that this is Whitehorse's week for consultations regarding fracking. I would like to remind you and your committee that my family of five is opposed to fracking in the Yukon.

●  Corriveau, Isabelle (Sept 24, 2014)

I totally agree with Reiner Rembe when he says
"where we hear about so many states and countries that have banned fracking in their jurisdictions, and for good reason - the use and poisoning of tremendous amounts of water for a simple fracking operation, and then either storing it in ponds or pounding it back into the ground, should be declared a criminal activity.

By that single fact alone, fracking should be outright banned in the Yukon. On top of that, there are countless adverse effects that fracking has on people and the environment. There is proven air pollution with severe neurological effects on humans and animals, groundwater contamination, the causing of earthquakes and leaking of methane. Fracking is also destroying farms and ranches, and displacing people who made a living on the land for generations.

All that, of course, gets disputed by the oil and gas industry, and they will drag people through lengthy and costly court battles that no ordinary citizen can afford.

That all being known makes it puzzling to me why fracking is ever debated in the Yukon at all.

Parallel to that, our federal and territorial neocons are strategically trying to dismantle environmental protection to cater to their friends in the oil and gas industry. This is corporate welfare and ideological engineering on a large scale. Any sane, reasonable human being would find this to be outrageously biased to say the least.

If we do not brake the grip of the multinational oil and gas companies on our democratic process and regulatory regime, consultation and democratic participation will become meaningless exercises.

In seeing the whole scenario unfolding, with fracking growing like a cancer south of the Yukon border, and its potential to destroy most of the Yukon wilderness and environment, it is only logical to clearly say no to fracking in Yukon!"

●  Ferguson, Carly (Sept 24, 2014)

No to hydraulic fracturing in Yukon. The changes to the environment with the chemicals used in the pre, during and post fracturing process poses long term, irreversible effects. Yukon environment and people are too important to ignore such risks in favour of mere economic profit.

●  Marra, Olimpia (Sept 24, 2014)

Shame on all of you who pulled the pin on beautiful self sustainable, if we'd let her, Yukon and the last natural water resource of the world. God help you. The future has now a big black mark. shame

●  Coulthard, Stephanie (Sept 24, 2014)

I'm strongly against hydraulic fracturing. Potable water is our most valuable resource and we should not be using it in this way. We should be protecting our water and moving towards alternate energy sources like geothermal, wind, or hydro. Please do not allow fracking in Yukon! Protect our water instead. We are going to need it

●  Mowat, Doug (Sept 24, 2014)

I am opposed to any fracking in the Yukon. Some reasons:huge amounts of water used in the process; methane gas leaks from the drilling and extraction process;cut lines and other destruction of the environment (see the cut lines and the the amount of land they take up as in the oil company north of the Dempster); fly in crews with no benefit to Yukon; profits go south and the Yukon is unlikely to receive royalties; and we that lose control of a the fact that wells quickly run out of gas or oik, requiring more and more wells must drilled. The gas is not going anywhere and can be used in the future if Fracking is ever proved to be safe.

Once we let one company frack, international agreements mean others will have the right to come in and frack.

Fracking is such a bad idea, it is hard for me to believe the Yukon Party is considering pit,

●  Liebau, Dagmar (Sept 24, 2014)

I am very concerned about hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. While I do understand the need for more and new resources of energy, I am concerned about the health and safety of people, animals and our environment. I do believe there is the possibility of conducting the extraction in a save way, but at that time I do not trust in the necessary contribution of money and education to ensure public safety. The past shows that enormous amounts of money will be spent for profit and economy, while the safety of our environment will be looked at with a lot less concerns. I ask the government to show us the willingness to put the same amounts of money into the safety of these operations, which, also includes highly trained people to execute such operations as well as monitor the running of equipment. At that point in time I see to many accidents, which could have been avoided, not well thought through operations and not educated enough staff. A great ec onomy, jobs and comfortable live styles is for sure what we all want, but if we have to pay with dead or insured people, due to accidents or a polluted environment, which happen out of sheer greed for more and more, than this is a price to high for me to pay. Because of that I am against hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon at this time.

●  Winterbauer, Bernd (Sept 24, 2014)

Hallo People,

please stop Fracking all over the world and of cause in Kanada!! Its bad for water and for the nature!!
Bernd from Germany!!

●  Dimsdale, George (Sept 24, 2014)

Hydraulic fracturing to enhance oil and gas production as done in Canada is a proven, environmentally safe methodology, notwithstanding the hysterical propaganda spread by activists.

Of course, no hydraulic fracturing should occur in Yukon until an appropriate regulatory regime is established. The Alberta and BC regimes can be used as models for Yukon, and we can incorporate the best features of both. Creating Yukon's regulations should be a short duration exercise, since best practices are well known.

The social, employment and economic (including increased taxes and royalties for social programs) benefits resulting from expanding Yukon's oil and gas industry have the potential to change Yukon from a "have not" welfare society dependent largely upon our burden being placed on southern taxpayers' backs, to a "have" society, that supports itself and contributes its fair share to the rest of Canada, with an economy based upon private sector initiative and employment creation, instead of government handouts, while protecting our environment.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments. I look forward to a balanced, well researched and reasoned report from the Committee.

●  Collectif Non au gaz de schiste Val de Drôme (Sept 24, 2014)

Le collectif Non au gaz de schiste Val de Drôme tient à faire part au Select Committee de son opposition concernant les projets d'exploiter des ressources non conventionnelles dans le Yukon. La technique envisagée, à savoir la fracturation hydraulique, est particulièrement dévastatrice or il n'existe pas d'autres méthodes pour exploiter le gaz de schiste. Utilisée malheureusement dans plusieurs pays, elle met en péril les ressources en eau, l'équilibre climatique, la stabilité des plaques sismiques, l'intégrité des paysages, la qualité de vie et la santé des habitants, l'équilibre social des populations directement impactées...
Nous vivons dans une société globalisée. Les enjeux environnementaux font de chacun de nous des citoyens du monde. Aussi, resterons-nous en contact permanent avec les opposants yukonnais au gaz de schiste et a minima, nous relayerons les décisions qui seront prises qu'elles soient responsables et louables ou au contraire condamnables.
Notre détermination à défendre l'environnement au Yukon n'a d'égal que notre détermination à le défendre partout dans le monde. Le gaz de schiste: ni ici, ni ailleurs!
Collectif Non au Gaz de Schiste Val de Drôme

The Collectif Non au gaz de schiste Val de Drôme (Val de Drôme association against shale gas) wishes to inform the Select Committee of its opposition to projects that exploit unconventional resources in Yukon. The technique at issue, that is, hydraulic fracturing, is particularly devastating, and no other methods are currently available to extract shale gas. Unfortunately, this method has been employed in several countries, where it has threatened water supplies, climate balance, the stability of tectonic plates, landscape integrity, the quality of life and health of inhabitants, the social equilibrium of the people who are directly affected by it . . .

We live in a global society where environmental issues make each one of us a citizen of the world. We plan to stay in constant contact with Yukoners who oppose shale gas and, at the very least, will relay all decisions made, whether they are responsible and commendable or, to the contrary, are reprehensible.

Our determination to protect the environment in Yukon is equalled only by our determination to protect it all over the world. Shale gas: not here, not anywhere!

* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Bunker, Kat (Sept 23, 2014)

Hi there, I am a yukon citizen, and would like my opinion known that I believe the yukon should ban this form of gas extraction in the territory.

I believe we need to keep the wilderness that we have, and above all, that our water must be kept clean. For our children and their children, we must set an example for the rest of Canada.

Thank you for making my voice heard.

●  Martin, Richard C. (Sept 23, 2014)

Comments Submitted

●  Porter, Dennis (Sept 23, 2014)

One thing is for sure ,who is going to live with the mess that the Oil Companys leave behind, nobody but the locals,& the money is taken out of the North, can we drink money ? no way, The amount of water it takes to drill one,well & the chemicals that is added to a well is crazy,and what water is lost can-not be recovered,what are we going to leave the future generation ?'nothing '' what happens is that the Fat -ass oil companys get rich, while the northener's get srewed with poisened water, which is considered one of the best in the world, even the Native so -called Leader are so money hungry ,they lose sight of their mandate, to work for the people; But heck no their in there for what little crumbs ,the companys ,throw their way, & forget about looking after our Mother '' which the earth, Like individual said at a workshop, fracking is still not fully understood, so do everyone a favour and listen to the northen people'' Thank you; Dennis Porter

●  Debreceni, Alicia (Sept 23, 2014)

To the members of the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing:
I am writing to state that I do not support the use of hydraulic fracturing in Yukon. Governments and communities around the world are saying no to fracking and Yukon should do the same. I do not support the use of water for this purpose and cannot accept the risks that this technique presents to the environment. We need to stop looking at ways to access fossil fuels and start thinking and planning for cleaner energy now and for the future. Fracking is a desperate last resort and I feel it would be a mistake for Yukon to allow it to be used here. I say no to fracking!

●  Kerr, Jonathan (Sept 23, 2014)

I feel that to participate in this discussion, we must understand our current reliance on fossil fuels. Please look at the attached slides. We cannot move forward or have a realistic debate about energy without knowing where we currently stand. Approximately 80% of the Yukon’s energy is obtained by purchasing imported fossil fuels.
I do not believe that our society will accept the economic burden if alternative renewable energy, costs more.  People/politicians/governments/industry “say” they are serious about climate change, but I call bullshit on our governments and our community that elects them.  Not to sound cynical, but our governments get elected time and time again by making the economy and economic growth a priority, and simply stated, this requires a foundation built on the cheapest energy available.  Given this reality, the only alternative is to create renewable energy sources that are cost competitive with fossil fuels.  Therefore, I believe we must compete with fossil fuels head on. 
I don’t really care if the fossil fuels come from the Yukon or Alberta; both of these places are on planet earth, a place I value tremendously.  The planet “feels” their impacts, regardless of where they are extracted/used.  If we say no to fossil fuels and fracking in the Yukon, are we saying “let’s keep using fossil fuels from somewhere else, and we’ll continue to carry no local environment risk/impact?  Hypocrisy is front and center on my mind when I think about this. We sure use far more than our fair share, yet we carry no immediate local risk or impact - outside of climate change (and honestly, for the time being, most Yukoners aren’t even being significantly affected by climate change and therefore don’t care -“out of sight, out of mind”).
What I would like to see is an unwavering endorsement (and supporting policy and real action) by government, in two key areas:
1. Energy Conservation and Efficiency Improvement; and
2. The creation of low-cost renewable energy generation, which for the Yukon are projects such as:
? The Marsh Lake Storage Enhancement Project
? The Atlin Lake Storage Enhancement Project (which unfortunately was killed because of poor government leadership and the use of miss-information and project knowledge)
? The Gladestone Lakes Diversion Project; and
? Future large hydro projects.
I feel that the fracking debate, although important, has become a massive distraction by politicians and the public at large, to a much more important and significant debate; “How do we begin to stop our addiction to fossil fuels while not significantly impacting our quality of life? (and I’m not talking about the obvious need to conserve energy and use it more efficiently – that’s obvious).
As described, our current dependence on fossil fuels is massive.  Tomorrow, if we were to cut the flow of this cheap energy to the Yukon, life in the Yukon as we know it would end.  Our economy, our jobs, our incomes, health care, roads, municipal infrastructure, everything would stop working.  A realistic discussion on the Yukon’s energy future cannot take place if we don’t clearly understand how deeply entrenched in cheap fossil fuels we have become.  It’s this reality that we must understand as the place from where we move forward.  In other words, the amount of energy that we are talking about displacing with renewables is significant and there will be no change unless cost competitive renewables are available.
All renewables in and of themselves, have environmental impact.  And this must be recognized by the public.
If there is one place on this planet where we should be able to supply our energy needs (in a cost competitive over fossil fuels), it’s right here in the Yukon.  We are a population of about 1/3 the size of Nanaimo, and we reside on a land mass about half the size of British Columbia.  We have massive renewable energy resources at our disposal, yet we have chosen to use fossil fuels.
At the moment, the single most achievable renewable energy project that can help start this journey forward is the Marsh Lake Storage Enhancement Project.  I really hope every person in the Yukon that is does not want fracking or fossil fuels extraction is in support of this and other local cost competitive renewable energy projects. 
Jonathan Kerr

●  Greetham, Georgia (Sept 23, 2014)

Dear Select Committee on Fracking:
Purposefully mixing chemicals with water and then forcing it into the ground and fracturing the earth to suck out what is there for a reason is foolish and absolutely detrimental not only to our water quality but also for the entire landscape and has far reaching implications that few can understand.

There is no question whether the crust will leak eventually, it will for certain.  To add, Fact: water is a limited, finite resource.  Even if the toxic water could be contained forever, (which is a totally preposterous suggestion), containing it would diminish the total amount of water available.  That is not a smart idea.

There are countless examples of the errors of man's ways when it comes to "scientific advancements" and trying to modify the natural world to better suit our present needs.  We are wrong every time!  When are we going to smarten up?

The only time we are right is when we work with nature and not against it.  Too few are doing this.  Let's be a leader, not a draconian saboteur. Working with nature has proven time and again to provide invaluable, lasting benefits. Let's make every effort to move in this direction.  Fracking is not it!

Fracturing the crust, sucking out gasses, forcing in liquids (and TOXINS), is a terrible process with devastating consequences, and there's insurmountable evidence that shows this.  Google it.

Fracking may provide some short term economic benefits for a few, but will most certainly produce long term detriment to our water and earth and home.   Don't let it happen here!  Stop it before it starts.

You are the stewards of a great and final frontier.  Make a lasting difference. Choose to work with our natural resources in a wise and sustainable way. Our grandchildren's grandchildren are depending on you.

●  Ferguson, P. (Sept 22, 2014)

To Yukon Legislative Select Committee on Fracking,
know that I, P. Ferguson, a Yukoner for 24 years do not approve of LNG Plant & Fracking in the Yukon Territory - a nature destination for many people and generations to come.
Please consider instead alternatives, such as renewable energy.

●  Boulais, Florian (Sept 22, 2014)

It is my understanding that capitalistic values are based on short term gains. I believe that fracking is only another crutch to support the lack of sustainability of this kind of economic model.

I would vehemently suggest you engage in longer term planning and ban fracking from the Yukon. I understand the value of having local energy sources but fracking is too hazardous of a technique to be engaged with.

On my end, I will do my utmost to educate and promote better ways to produce and use energy.

●  Sanderson, Erin (Sept 22, 2014)

Before I share my thoughts on the risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing with the select committee, I would first like to thank the members of the committee for taking the public's opinion into consideration. It is easier to criticize than to give positive recognition, and I recognize that I am fortunate to live in a country and territory that consults its constituents.

I moved to the Yukon 2.5 years ago and have found everything I've been looking for here in the territory. My husband was born and raised in the Yukon and we plan to have and raise our children here. As I plan out my future in the Yukon, my concern for the future of the territory only grows with the recent approval of the Whitehorse LNG plant and the possibility of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon.

With an Associate of Science Degree and a Diploma in Environmental Technology, I have spent long hours at home in the evening sifting through the numerous reports and publications put out by InvestYukon, Energy Mines and Resources, the Yukon Geological Survey, and also the Yukon Conservation Society. To be honest, I wish I could simply trust that the government would make a wise decision so that I didn't have to spend my free time researching complicated technical information. That is your job - correct? However, it increasingly seems that citizens are weary of the final decisions that will be made when it comes to oil and gas development. There is money to be made, there is no doubt about it. I am currently studying Business Administration at Yukon College and taking such course as Economics, Accounting, and Management. I understand that there are trade-offs. I understand that there is the potential for revenues to be earned and shared amongst the many areas that make our lives so easy and comfortable in the Yukon, but when thinking of this, I can't help but wonder "Have the costs been properly examined"?

In my management class right now we are learning about "Value Creation". That the true value of a resource, or any given product, is not only a monetary value. It is less tangible than that. When calculating the costs of hydraulic fracturing how can it be possible to make money off of a process that is so highly inefficient that it uses tremendous amounts of a resource as valuable as water? The goal of a any mechanical process should be efficiency - getting the most from the least inputs. WATER IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT INPUT! My number one concern with the risks of hydraulic fracturing is the water usage. It is risky because water doesn't have a numerical cost associated with it that properly represents how valuable it is going to become as the world's populations grows.

If the Yukon is really planning to open its doors to the investors, shareholders, and greedy outsiders tied up in the oil/gas industry then there are environmental consequences and liabilities that will be transferred to Yukoners. The thing is, we all need money, but are we not smart enough to do without fracking in the territory? We have a wealth of academics here, who are unfortunately enslaved to making unwise decisions for the future of the territory. We also have a wealth of creative and resilient young adults, like myself, who were attracted to this place for a reason. If and when we feel that fracking has reached an acceptable state of efficiency and accompanying strict regulations (ie. management of flowback) then as communities we can approach the oil and gas industry, and not the other way around. What I am saying is "We will come to them" when we are ready. But right now, from what I'm hearing from First Nations, from youth, from long-time Yukoners is that Yukoners don't want it. My guess is that if fracking proceeds in the territory, it is going to have a difficult time "selling" its product to customers, especially our own LNG plant. Why do I say that? Because as I said earlier about "value creation", the value of a product is defined by the customer. A product that contaminates ground water, requires massive amounts of water and chemicals, and contributes to methane concentrations in the atmosphere is NOT a valuable product. That will be made clear to anyone intending to purchase it.

The real future in any type of significant economic development lies in Corporate Social Responsibility and sound ethics. As investors become more aware of society's overall concern for social and environmental well-being they are going to be looking for companies who exemplify that and governments who work with those companies to ensure that their operations are HIGHLY regulated and HIGHLY enforced.

In conclusion, I personally feel that following suit of Nova Scotia (which recently banned high-volume hydraulic fracturing), that the government of Yukon should ban the use of hydraulic fracturing in the territory. It is too good to be true, as we've seen from the personal stories of those living in Northeastern BC. And much too much is at stake.

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission and I hope you will be able to recommend that the Government says NO to hydraulic fracturing. The government may lose some friends on the oustide, but will surely gain the well-needed trust of those within the territory.

●  Steiner, Mathias (Sept 22, 2014)

Stop Fracking!

●  Ott, Ann-Kathrin (Sept 22, 2014)

STOP FRACKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

●  Allard, Valérie (Sept 22, 2014)

It is absolutely dangerous to leave oil and gaz compagnies drilled on the permafrost without mesuring impacts on all the ecosystem around wich is delicate and fragile. I am asking for some independant researches that will exposes the impact on the nature, the animals and the drinkable water in each locations where projects are planified.

And people (first nations, citizens, environemental groups, etc.) need ton be consult, if they wish to let those consequences lead their choices.

●  Louvel, Yann (Sept 22, 2014)

Dear Committee members,
I am deeply concerned to hear that the Yukon Legislative Assembly is contemplating to agree hydraulic fracturing operations on its soil.
I did my studies in Canada and enjoyed greatly and still love its amazing and unique natural landscapes, like the ones you have in Yukon!
Given the experience of hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and the impacts on health and nature of this technology, it would be a folly to allow the same activities in such a pristine environment. I live in another pristine environment, in the South of France, and the French government decided in 2011 to ban hydraulic fracturing to protect it and others, after a massive mobilisation by the French people in our regions to stop this threat.
I also work for the BankTrack network, a coalition of NGOs tracking private banks investments around the world, and particularly fossil fuels, including shale gas. And I see that more and more investors divest from fossil fuels, like the Rockefellers just announced today (, when others revealed last year that gas companies consistently fail to report measurable reductions of their impacts on communities and the environment from hydraulic fracturing operations ( ( .
The future lies in renewable energy, not the old fossil fuels industry that is ruining our health and our environment. The risks of hydraulic fracturing outweigh by far its potential benefits. Don't put at risk your tourism sector and your way of life for false promises of fossil fuel companies that could destroy your land by polluting your water!
This is why I ask you to properly relay all the documented risks of hydraulic fracturing to the Yukon population and Legislative Assembly members, so that they take an informed decision to ban this technology from your territory, for the common good. We will follow closely the situation in Yukon in the coming weeks and months.
Best regards,
Yann Louvel, member of the Val de Drôme anti-shale gas committee, of Friends of the Earth France and Climate and Energy Campaign Coordinator of the BankTrack network

●  Forwell, Theodore (Sept 22, 2014)

Dear Members of the Select Committee,

I am opposed to hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon Territory. There should be a moratorium put in place since there are too many unanswered questions on the consequences of drilling in the Yukon.

Please do not permit fracking in the Yukon.
Theodore Forwell

●  Whitley, Mary (Sept 22, 2014)

I am opposed to the use of hydraulic fracturing in the development of oil and gas in the Yukon.  I base this position on the findings of the Council of Canadian Academies report "Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada" produced at the request of the Canadian Minister of the Environment.
In the Executive Summary pages, xii to xx, the environmental impacts of this type of extraction on water, greenhouse gas emissions, land, human health and safety, air contamination and seismic activity are addressed. 
Further, the Conclusions of the Panel on pages 211 to 219 clearly outline the main risks as "degradation of the quality of groundwater and surface water" and the "risk of  increased of GHG emissions." 
The "Summary of the Panel's Response to the Charge" contains 19 key findings.
I recommend that your Committee studies these sections of this report carefully, keeping in mind that it was produced at the REQUEST of the Environment Canada. 
After reading this report, your Committee can only conclude that oil and gas extraction by hydraulic fracturing is too risky and should not be allowed in the Yukon.

●  moylan, Kate (Sept 21, 2014)

While the Select Committee may be considering the scientific/engineering 'facts' around hydraulic fracking in the Yukon, they should also equally consider the social, health and psychological 'facts' related to this assessment. Quite frankly, fracking is not suitable in the Yukon for many reasons - cummulative effects (which our own environmental assessment board) does not account for either in fracking itself, or in the industrial traffic which will accompany the activity, or water/air quality. The Yukon should not become a 'sacrifice zone' for the sake of the economy. Look at north eastern BC. It is a mess. I support a complete moratorium on fracking in the Yukon! It is not worth the cost to climate, water, wildlife, ecosystem or human health. Our politicians should put our unique and fragile ecosystem first!

●  Hauck, Mareike (Sept 21, 2014)

Je me prononce contre l´exploitation du gaz de schiste au Yukon, une des dernières terres vierges de cette planète qui ne doit pas être soumise à l´avidité des grandes multinationales et aux conséquences dévastatrices de la fracturation hydraulique.
Stop fracking.

I am against shale gas extraction in Yukon, one of the planet’s sole remaining unblemished lands. It must not be subjected to the greed of multinational corporations and the devastating consequences of hydraulic fracturing.
Stop fracking.

* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Balay, Guillaume (Sept 21, 2014)

Chers menbres des l'assemblée,
je me joint aux citoyens du monde entier qui levent leurs voix pour sauver les richesses naturelles que sont la biodiversité sauvage du Yukon.

L'exploitation du gaz de schiste est une erreur, celle-ci ne profite pas à la population locales, ne développe pas l'activité locale, détruit l'environnement et ceci seulement pour le profit immédiat de quelques grandes entreprises.

Ne vendez pas votre terre à ces multinationales, c'est là la plus grande des richesses.

Alors que le GIEC à encore une fois tiré la sonette d'alarme, que nous savons qu'il est temps de s'engager dans une transition énergétique, le gaz de schiste est la représentation des erreurs du passé et il est dangereux pour notre avenir à tous de s'obstiner dans cette voie depuis longtemps vouée à la catastrophe.

Des alternatives énergétiques efficaces, rentables et durables existent, elles représentes un investissement bien plus interessant car sur le long terme, pour assurer un avenir viable.

Dear members of the Committee,
I am joining the citizens of the world who are raising their voices to save the natural wealth of Yukon’s wild biodiversity.

Shale gas extraction is a mistake. It does not benefit the local populations, nor does it develop local activity. It destroys the environment for the immediate profit of a few large corporations.
Do not sell your land to these multinationals. Land is our greatest wealth.

The IPCC has once again sounded the alarm, and we realize it is time to embark upon an energy transition. Shale gas represents errors of the past, and continuing along this pathway jeopardizes everyone’s future, which has been headed toward catastrophe for a long time.

Efficient, profitable and durable energy alternatives do exist. They are a wiser long-term investment for ensuring a viable future.
Thank you.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Dubreuil, J-F (Sept 21, 2014)

Fracking is simply unacceptable, it's destroying all the nature from outside to inside the earth. Good luck and don't give up!

●  Ferry Parmentier, Céline (Sept 21, 2014)

Partout où le fracking a été utilisé l'environnement est dégradé de manière irrémédiable. Cette technique n'apporte que désillusion et ruine des territoires. Aucune réglementation n'est possible, ni envisageable. NO FRACKING!!!

Irreversible environmental degradation has occurred everywhere fracking has been used. This procedure leads to disillusionment and ruins the land. Regulation is impossible and unfeasible. NO FRACKING!!!

* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Tétreault, Jacques (Sept 20, 2014)

One of the most stupid thing that human have done is fracking.
How can you imagine for one instant that incorporate millions litters of chemicals into the soil can be good for environment. Human need water to live, not oil!
Let the water alone!

●  Roberts, Donald (Sept 20, 2014)

Dear Select Committee,
I am writing you on behalf of Yukoners Concerned About Oil/Gas Exploration to inform you that we will be submitting to the Fall Legislative Assembly a petition of approximately 6000 Yukoners who have signed to Ban LNG and Fracking in the Yukon.
When going to door to door with our petition the fundamental point for most Yukoners was the complete destruction of our fresh water. Many Yukoners saw no benefit to drill for oil/gas by fracking if our most precious resource 'water' was destroyed forever.
The fact that there is little baseline data on our water, geology, wildlife, permafrost, impacts on roadways, air quality, and potential health issues were very strong points raised by many Yukoners at the door. It was also stated by many Yukoners that the Yukon Energy Conversion from diesel back up generators to LNG generators was nothing but a demonstration by government to set up a potential market to frack in the Yukon. As you well know the geology of the Yukon is over 90% shale and to extract any oil/gas will require fracking.
We state once again that 6000 Yukoners are telling the Yukon Government to Ban LNG and Fracking in the Yukon.

Donald J Roberts, Chair
Yukoners Concerned

●  Roberts, Marguerite (Sept 20, 2014)

Dear Select Committee,
As a Committee you have been presented an in-depth knowledge of material by many experts that clearly point to the harm that fracking will cause in the Yukon. The primary harm will be the destruction of our water and the immense volume that is used in each frack operation. To add insult to injury this polluted water that is laced with silica sand and hundreds of unknown chemicals is taken out of the total hydrology forever. This polluted water cannot be stored or hidden without many negative consequences to our aquifers, rivers, lakes, fauna and wild life. At least 60% of the polluted water stays in the original drill hole and the rest of it comes to the surface that is either kept in holding ponds or re-injected in dry holes. As hydrologists explain fluid moves constantly both on land and below the land surface and polluted fracking fluid will move constantly and over time will pollute much of our fresh water forever.
Today in many parts of the world drought conditions exist and are slowly getting worse. Water is the base of existence and we must not pollute what remains of our fresh water in the Yukon. It is only the oil/gas industry that tells government and people that frqcking can be done safely and not to worry.
The Yukon Legislative Select Committee must recommend to the Government that LNG and fracking be banned in the Yukon
thank you.
Marguerite Roberts

●  Morand, Louise (Sept 20, 2014)

Fracking is poisoning water, air and ground.

●  Fredette, Line (Sept 20, 2014)

Fracking is unacceptable. You have the duty to protect that territory, the duty to keep it clean. Please wait until à better method of explotation is Founder. I live in La Présentation where agriculture is very importante for Québec. The shale gas weel links. Their is no way for us to get that field back to its initial condition.
That is a shame.
Tank you for taking Time to read me.
Line Fredette

●  Robert, Valérie et Denis (Sept 20, 2014)

Aux personnes responsables de la Commission ,
Nous habitons un petit village dans le Sud-Est de la FRANCE et en 2011 nous avons appris que notre région recélait un "trésor" inestimable dans son sous-sol: le gaz de schiste! Même chose dans la région de Paris, et dans d'autres régions de France . Cette énergie fossile allait permettre à notre pays de lutter contre la crise économique et de créer beaucoup d'emplois. Mais nous avons découvert qu'en fait cette éventuelle exploration suivie d'une exploitation allait surtout profondément dénaturer notre territoire , polluer notre environnement et en particulier notre eau de manière irréversible! Comme beaucoup de nos concitoyens, nous nous y sommes opposés car nous sommes profondément convaincus qu'il est indispensable de produire et consommer autrement et de changer les mentalités: c'est " la sobri&ea cute;té heureuse" sur le chemin d'une transition énergétique "raisonnable" et progressive prônée par un agroécologiste notoire de notre région . Nos enfants, petits-enfants et tous ceux qui suivront, pourront alors envisager un avenir "viable" si c'est encore possible!!! Il suffit de constater la fonte inéluctable de la banquise, la montée inéluctable des océans et les bouleversements humains qui en découlent déjà , la détresse de milliers de personnes déjà privées d'eau douce, le changement climatique bien présent pour se dire qu'il est encore temps!! ALORS , S'il vous plait: préservez votre patrimoine et vos terres : pas d'exploration de gaz de schiste au Yukon! Ni ICI NI AILLEURS!
MERCI de la bonne lecture que vous accorderez à notre modeste contribution

To the Commission officials
We live in a small town in the southeast of France. In 2011, we learned that our region held an invaluable buried treasure: shale gas. The same was true for the Paris region and other regions of France. This fossil energy promised to release our country from the economic crisis and create jobs. We discovered to the contrary, however, that shale exploration, followed by its extraction, would mostly cause serious harm to our territory and irreversibly pollute the environment and our water in particular. Like many of our fellow citizens, we opposed the project because we firmly believe that we need to alter our production and consumption habits and that people’s attitudes must change. We must strive for "happy sobriety" on the road to a "reasonable" and progressive energy transition, as advocated by a renowned agroecologist from our region. Our children, grandchildren and all those who follow them would be able to envision a "viable" future, assuming this is still possible. We need only consider the inevitable melting of pack ice, rising sea levels and the impact on human populations that is being felt already, the distress of thousands of people with no fresh water sources, climate change . . . but there is still time! PLEASE preserve your heritage and your land: say no to shale gas exploration in Yukon. NOT HERE. NOT ANYWHERE!
THANK YOU for considering our modest contribution to the discussion.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Manteaux, Annick (Sept 19, 2014)

Les pétroliers et gaziers surestiment la taille des gisements et les rendements ainsi que les créations d'emplois.
Les entreprises pétrolières et gazières minimisent les risques élevés qui pèsent sur l'économie (pertes d'emplois définitives dans le tourisme et l'agriculture), sur l'environnement et la santé.
Pourtant, aux États Unis, le patron d'ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, en février 2014, milite contre l'installation d'un château d'eau destiné à alimenter en eau les puits d'extraction de gaz de schiste près de son luxueux ranch au Texas (peur des nuisances sonores dues aux défilés de camions, peur de la dévalorisation de son ranch) . Vous pouvez voir à ce sujet, l'article du journal "Le Monde" du 26/02/2014 grâce au lien suivant : .
D'autre part, toujours aux U.S.A., des familles ayant subi de graves problèmes de santé à la suite de fracturations opérées dans le voisinage, commencent à obtenir gain de cause. L'une d'elle a obtenu 3 millions de dollars de dédommagements. Vous pouvez aussi lire l'article dans EcoWatch du 23/04/2014, grâce au lien suivant: . D'habitude une transaction a lieu et les plaignants n'ont plus de liberté de paroles.
En conclusion, je soutiens vivement l'action des opposants à l'exploitation dans le Yukon et demande au "Select Committee" de ne pas autoriser cette industrie qui saccagerait le Yukon.

Oil and gas companies overestimate the size of the pools, the yield and the number of jobs that will be created.
They minimize the high risk to the economy (permanent loss of jobs in the tourism and agriculture sectors), to the environment and to people’s health.
Yet, in the United States in February 2014, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson came out against the construction of a water tower to supply water for fracking operations near his luxury ranch in Texas (for fear of noise from the truck traffic, fear of depreciation of his ranch). For more information, you can refer to the article in "Le Monde" (February 26, 2014) at this link:
In the United States as well, families who have been affected by serious health issues as a result of fracking operations in their neighbourhoods are beginning to win their lawsuits. One of them was awarded $3 million in compensation. You can read the article in EcoWatch (April 23, 2014) at the following link: Usually, there is a settlement, and the plaintiffs are prohibited from discussing the case.
To conclude, I wish to express my wholehearted support of the opponents of fracking in Yukon and request that the "Select Committee" refrain from providing its authorization to this industry, which would ravage Yukon.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Mennell, Daphne (Sept 19, 2014)

I am so very AGAINST Fracking anywhere in the Yukon, Canada, and really, the world. It is hard for me to believe that it is even an option we are considering, let alone something that we have to fight against happening over and over and over again. It is so obviously wrong an idea and practice that I have to wonder what hideous movement would try to support it happening. Just because it can be done scientifically doesn't make it right.

The fact that we already have dealt with this once here, with the government backing down on Fracking, then in the very next breath we know for a fact that government officials were going to Alberta making apologies and asking these companies to not give up hope on the Yukon. What kind of government is this? Why are they doing this?

This whole process seems to be designed to erode the public who out of their own free time, money and resources make desperate efforts to stand their ground trying to protect this country from devastation and destruction, irreversible pollution and loss of safe habitat for all living creatures includeing ourselves. All the while the civil servants are getting paid to wait it out.. until we all tire and give into the fact that no matter what we do or say or how many times we say it, we will not be listened to.

What is this really doing? It is causing all of us to stop believing in government or their processes they call democratic, and start waking up to the realization that perhaps, perhaps, we are slowly being conformed into a dictatorship. I know one thing for sure, it is not only the young adults in this country that are dissillusioned with politics, it is everyone, irrespective of age, gender or race. Please give us a reason to think otherwise!

●  Montpetit, Gérard (Sept 19, 2014)

Good Morning,
I have studied the problems related to fracking since Gastem and Canbrian Energy drilled and fracked a gas well in my municipality in 2010. This well is leaking methane into the atmosphere from outside the ciment/and steel casing. Methane is 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas over a 100 horizon; however it is more than 80 times as potent over a 20 years span. And greenhouse gases are a huge problem related to climate change. Since you live above the artic circle, global warming is liable to hit Yukoners harder than us near de 45 parralel.

Two serious problems have not been examined in the various submissions I have read in your url address.

First of all, fracking is an extremely ineffective way to get natural gas. In conventional drilling for gas, more than 90% of the methane can be economically taken out of the subsoil. In fracking, it is about 20% (average); this means that 80% of the gas is left in the ground. However, the methane migrates towards the cracks created in the shale at an extremely slow rate; over thousands of years, the pressure will built up in the well. Will the cement and the steel tubing of the casing be able to withstand the pressure for 100 000 years??? If not, that will another source of greenhouse gases that will plage the quality of life of your great-great-grand-children!

Second problem. And it is directly related to the ineffectiveness of the fraking process I have pointed out in the previous paragraph. I do not know the legal situation in the Yukon. In Quebec, once a well is empty (from a economic point of view, but 80% of the gas remains in the shale), the drilling company caps the well and after an inspection by the ministries of the environnment and natural resourses, the well becomes the property of the gouvernment of Quebec. In other words, the gouvernment becomes legally and financially responsible to maintain and repair the well in the future. The drilling company is not responsible for the long term maintenance of the well. If your legal framework is similar to ours, this, also, becomes an environmental and financial liability for your great-great-grand-children.

There is a proverb that states that death and taxes are the only certainties during our lifetime. From now on,if Yukon accepts fracking, there will be three certainties; a) death, b) taxes c) all those wells will leak, sooner or later.

Veillez accepter, Mesdames et Messieurs, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.

●  Durand, Annie (Sept 19, 2014)

Malgré le courage et la détermination des populations locales, il est difficile de s'opposer aux multinationales quand on est peu nombreux et que l'on est dispersés sur un territoire aussi vaste que le Yukon , aussi nous souhaitons apporter notre soutien aux yukonnais
Partout dans le monde les populations locales s'opposent à l'exploitation des hydrocarbures de roche mère car leur spécificité entraine obligatoirement de graves conséquences pour la qualité de l'environnement, la vie des populations locales que tout état devrait protéger. Dans le cas particulier des zones peu peuplées où la biodiversité préservée est une richesse pour toute l'humanité, cette exploitation minière, dont la durée est limitée mais les conséquences, en grande partie irréversibles est particulièrement néfaste.
Nous vous demandons de bien vouloir prendre des décisions qui préserveront l'avenir des populations locales,et, dans l'intérêt de nous tous, d'interdire les exploitations d'hydrocarbures de roche mère et l'utilisation de la fracturation hydraulique. Merci pour votre attention, veuillez croire en notre considération.
Pour les collectifs de citoyens des Hautes Cévennes et Auzonnet, Cèze et Ganière(30)FRANCE
"non au gaz de schist"

Despite the courage and determination of local populations, it is difficult to oppose multinational corporations in cases where a small number of people are scattered over a territory as vast as Yukon. We wish to offer our support to all Yukoners.
Throughout the world, local populations oppose the extraction of hydrocarbons from the source rock because it leads to serious consequences to environment quality and the lives of the local population, which every state has a duty to protect. In the specific situation of sparsely populated areas where the preserved biodiversity benefits all humankind, such mining operations, which take place over a short period of time but whose consequences are for the most part irreversible, are especially harmful.
We ask that you make decisions to safeguard the future of local populations and, in everyone’s interest, prohibit the extraction of hydrocarbons from the source rock and the use of hydraulic fracturing.
Thank you for your attention. Best regards.
On behalf of the citizen associations of Hautes Cévennes and Auzonnet, Cèze and Ganière (30) FRANCE
"Say no to shale gas."
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Gingras, Diane (Sept 19, 2014)

I really think that «Fracking is completely unacceptable» and I seriously hope that your citizens's health will prime upon financials interests.

●  Gauthier, Raymond (Sept 19, 2014)

Il faut bannir la fracturation.
Fracking is completely unacceptable

Fracking must be banned
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Brault, Vanessa (Sept 19, 2014)

Good day,
I am not in support of fracking in the Yukon. Period. You know all the reasons why not to, the risk is to large to experiment. Please keep the Yukon the tourism product it is, and the leader in protecting what we all value, our land.
Thank you for your time and dedication to this issue,
Vanessa Brault
P.S.This topic of Fracking in the Yukon should be voted on. One final answer.
Fracking might work for us, just like I might win the lottery.

●  Lamontagne, Denise (Sept 19, 2014)

Fracking is completely inacceptable.

Ne cédez pas à la pression des gazières. La fracturation sous toutes ses formes mènent à des problèmes importants au niveau de l'environnement, de la qualité de l'air et de la santé. J'ai personnellement vu ces problèmes en Pennsylvanie (USA) et nous avons déjà des puits de gaz de schiste problématiques au Québec en plus des 600 puits orphelins abandonnés. On ne veut plus voir ça au Québec ni ailleurs. Les fuites des puits sont inévitables un jour ou l'autre puisque la pression se refait dans le sous-sol et créé des fissures. Ça contamine le sol et peut contaminer la nappe phréatique. DANGER!!!

Fracking is completely inacceptable.

Do not bend to the pressure of gas companies. Fracking in all of its forms has serious impacts on the environment, air quality and health. I have witnessed these problems first-hand in Pennsylvania (USA), and we already have problem-riddled shale gas wells in Quebec, not to mention more than 600 abandoned, orphan wells. We don’t want that in Quebec, or anywhere else. Eventual well leaks are inevitable because pressure builds up underground and causes fissures. This leads to soil contamination, which can in turn contaminate the water table. DANGER!!!
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  baradel, Alain (Sept 19, 2014)

Alors que la seule solution, pour sauver la planète, serait de consommer moins et autrement, c'est-à-dire en tentant de préserver notre environnement le mieux possible, l'homme s 'acharne chaque jour à consommer plus et à étendre son emprise sur les derniers espaces demeurés encore vierges . Si le Yukon, aux immensités encore préservées, et aux paysages d'une totale splendeur, donne demain son aval aux grandes sociétés minières américaines, pour l'exploitation des gaz de schistes, ce sera le véritable massacre d'une nature encore sauvage et épargnée par la main de l'homme . On sait les ravages causés aux paysages et la pollution des eaux que cela a entraîné aux Etats-Unis, et aucun procédé d'extraction nouveau, qui éviterait ces énormes d& eacute;gâts, n'a encore été mis au point, si tant est que cela soit possible . Tout cela au nom du Dieu pétrole, devenu le "veau d'or" de notre époque . En France, les Cévennes ont été en un temps menacées, à l'image du Yukon . Les habitants et les écologistes ont réussi à faire bloquer les projets d'exploitation des gaz de schistes, du moins pour l'instant . Espérons qu'il puisse en être de même au Yukon, même si la très faible population de ces territoires rend l'entreprise beaucoup plus difficile . Il faut se battre pour sauver notre terre et laisser à nos enfants un monde vivable et où l'on puisse encore rêver.

While the only solution to saving our planet is to reduce consumption and preserve our environment to the greatest extent possible, people still insist on increasing consumption each day and exerting control over the last unblemished regions. If Yukon, with its untouched vastness and splendid landscapes, consents to the extraction of shale gas by American mining companies, this would result in the destruction of a still-wild environment that has been spared from human hands. We are familiar with the devastation to the landscape and water pollution that shale extraction has caused in the United States, and no new extraction procedures are available to prevent such damage, assuming this is even possible. All this in the name of the oil gods, which have become the "golden calf" of our times. The Cévennes in France were once threatened, in much the same way as Yukon is today. The inhabitants and ecologists were successful in blocking the shale gas extraction projects, at least for the time being. Let us hope this will be the outcome in Yukon as well, even if it will be more difficult given the territory’s small population. We have to fight to save our planet and leave behind a world that our children can live in and where dreams are still possible.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Collectif stop gds SAA (Sept 19, 2014)

Le Collectif Stop au Gaz et huile de Schiste St Alban-Auriolles(Ardèche France) apporte tout son soutien aux militants anti-fracking du Yukon et demande au "Select Committee on risks & benefits on Fracking" de ne pas autoriser cette industrie qui saccagerait l'un des derniers territoires préservés de la planète qu'est le Yukon.

Le prix de revient élevé, la surestimation des gisements et des rendements, le rythme élevé de l’épuisement des gisements, la surestimation de la création d’emplois et les risques élevés qui pèsent sur l’économie, la santé et l’environnement font que ce secteur est fondamentalement non rentable.
No Gazaran
Collectif Stop au Gaz et huile de Schiste St Alban-Auriolles(Ardèche France)

The Collectif Stop au Gaz et huile de Schiste St Alban-Auriolles (association against shale gas and oil extraction from Saint-Alban-Auriolles) (Ardèche, France) fully supports the anti-fracking activists of Yukon and requests that the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing refrain from providing its authorization to the shale industry, which would devastate Yukon, one of the last preserved territories on the planet.

Given the high costs, the overestimate of pools and yields, the high rate of pool exhaustion, the overestimate of job creation and the high risk to the economy, health and the environment, this is a fundamentally unprofitable sector. 
No Gazaran
Collectif Stop au Gaz et huile de Schiste St Alban-Auriolles (Ardèche, France)
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  TERRASI, Sylviane (Sept 19, 2014)

Bonjour, J'exprime mon soutien à la population Yukanaise dans leur opposition à l'exploitation des Gaz de Schiste qui mettrait irrémédiablement en péril la situation sanitaire et écologique de ce territoire qui est l'un des derniers de la planète a être resté vierge. Nous devons arrêter cette folie qui pollue gravement les sols et les nappes phréatiques et mettent les populations humaines et animales en danger de maladie et de mort.
De plus, l'Université de Cornell, en Oklahoma (USA) vient de prouver que les séismes dans cet Etat sont bien provoqués par l'injection, dans des puits d'évacuation, d'eaux usées engendrées par ce type d'exploitation (Science & Vie de Septembre 2014). Il n'y a qu'une façon raisonnable de produire de l'énergie : d'abord en l'économisant et ensuite, en exploitant les ressources naturelles que la nature nous offre : solaire, géothermie, hydraulique, compostage ...
J'espère vivement que ce genre de projet ne verra jamais le jour en territoire Yukon.
Avec mes meilleurs sentiments,
Sylviane TERRASI, membre du Collectif Anti-Gaz de Schiste des Hautes Cévennes en France.

I wish to express my support of the population of Yukon in its opposition to shale gas extraction, which would cause irreparable harm to the health and ecology of this territory, one of the few remaining unblemished regions of the planet.
We must put a stop to this foolishness, which heavily pollutes the soil and water tables and which places the human and animal populations at risk of illness and death.
Furthermore, Cornell University in Oklahoma (USA) has just proved that the earthquakes in this state have been triggered by the injection of wastewater from the extraction into discharge wells (Science & Vie, September 2014).
There is only one reasonable way in which to produce energy: the first step is to save it, and the next is to use the natural resources that nature has given us: solar, geothermal, hydraulic, composting…
I sincerely hope that this type of project will never see the light of day in Yukon. 
Sylviane TERRASI, member of the Collectif Anti-Gaz de Schiste des Hautes Cévennes (anti-shale gas association of the Hautes Cévennes) in France
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Whiteside, Dave (Sept 18, 2014)

Members of the Select Committee on Fracking,

I would like you to know that I am against any kind of fracking anywhere.  I know it to be a waste of precious water.  Water is what we will be fighting over in the near future and we are poisoning it.  It is an egregious error.

As I have learned more about fracking I have moved from an agnostic poison on the process to one where I find that I cannot condone it.

My partner and I have already sold all financial products that we owned that had anything to do with fracking.

It causes disturbance within the earth, it causes disruption for wildlife, in particular large prey species upon the earth and the methane it releases, both fugitive and captured, accelerate disturbances in the atmosphere around our earth.  I cannot see any real redeeming feature for the process except that it makes a few people wealthy, if indeed that is a redeeming feature.

Please do not allow any sort of fracking here in the Yukon.

●  Bendall, Michael (Sept 18, 2014)

To the Select Committee on Fracking:
I have just driven up the Alaska highway from Vancouver to Whitehorse .
Within 50 -100km from Fort St,John I  was completely taken aback by the fracking development in that area ..
Every 2-3 km.there was a newly constructed gravel road off  both sides of the highway leading to a fracking site .
The highway was in deplorable condition with potholes,patchwork repairs and ongoing reconstruction.
Worst of all was the volume of traffic ....huge trucks transporting sand "the Sand Guys",water trucks ,fuel trucks ,piping trucks,,propane trucks ,unmarked liquid tankers ..enormous generator trucks!!!
Unbelievable ...nose to tail over kilometeres...and for every huge truck there must have been  6 to 10 pickup trucks bearing equipment ,welding generators ,workers..on and on ..
It was quite astounding and frightening....I cannot imagine Yukon roads withstanding this onslaught not only the volume but the weight load of this non-stop wave of trucking!
Who pays for the road upgrades and reconstruction with this perpetual devastation ..and Im not talking about fracking yet!!??
I am TOTALLY averse to the possibilty of fracking anywhere and especially in the Yukon.
Its insane to plunder in this fashion for a very short term gain ...and debatable if there is in fact any gain ...with resultant devastation to OUR land..and more worrisome, the very real potential of polluting OUR ground water and air...THINK PEOPLE!
When its all over and we cannot turn the clock bak ...will we regret this abomination...and say why did we get conned into this horrible mess,why didn't  some-one do some thing to stop this destruction ... and ultimately be unable to say sorry to our children and grandchildren???
Dr.Michael G. Bendall

●  Postma, John (Sept 18, 2014)

I am unable to attend the public hearings but I wish to submit some comments on the issue of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Yukon. The publicly available 262-page document, "Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada", prepared by the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) and commissioned by Environment Canada will be the focal point of my comments.

Environment Canada asked the CCA to address the following question:

"What is the state of knowledge of potential environmental impacts from the exploration, extraction, and development of Canada's shale gas resources, and what is the state of knowledge of associated mitigation options?"

Briefly, the CCA's key findings were:

1. improvements have been made to lessen the environmental impacts of fracking but there has been no comprehensive investment in environmental monitoring or research;
2. methane, a greenhouse gas roughly thirty times as potent as carbon dioxide, leakage from wells is as yet an unsolved problem;
3. groundwater contamination can occur from upward migration of natural gas and saline waters due to inadequate seals, natural fractures, abandoned wells and permeable faults;
4. claims that fracking has no verifiable impacts on groundwater have been refuted by recent peer-reviewed studies;
5. fracking chemicals are a potential source of water contamination due to flowback, leakage and improper storage;
6. supporting infrastructure (e.g., roads, pipelines, ditches) alter local hydrology; I add that they also fragment the landscape and reduce ecosystem function;
7. seismic risks are in most regions low, but fracking should be avoided near active faults;
8. the short- and long-term health risks of shale gas development are not well studied;
9. if natural gas replaces coal to generate electricity then it may reduced greenhouse gas emissions, provided the well leakage problem is solved; if it replaces a low carbon fuel (e.g. nuclear or hydro) then emissions may increase;
10. the benefits are primarily regional although adverse impacts are mostly local; First Nations' rights may be affected;
11. advantages of the "go slow" approach are additional data collection and the opportunity to implement environmental surveillance;
12. a science-based, adaptive and outcomes-based regulatory approach will likely be more effective than a prescriptive approach and may lead to increased public trust.

On page 7 of the CCA report, it discusses how western societies have underestimated the environmental impacts of all major energy sources and many other industrial initiatives due in part to an optimism that technology will solve all the problems that arise. Similar to what is occurring today in many parts of the country and world, long-term environmental and health impacts of an activity were discounted in favour of short-term employment and economic expansion.

An information pamphlet from Yukon Health and Social Services entitled, "Getting Your Drinking
Water Tested - Good Advice for Private Well Owners", states:

"Just because your neighbour's well water is safe does not mean your water is also safe. Sometimes, wells that are a few meters apart have totally different water quality. Differences in local surface and underground geology (e.g., bedrock croppings), the depth of the well (e.g., shallow wells are more susceptible to surface water run-off), and well construction (e.g., casing may not be sealed) may mean that the quality of the drinking water from your well is not the same as that of your neighbour's."

If the geological uncertainty between my well and my neighbour's well is a sufficient cause for concern then fracturing the underlying bedrock, injecting chemicals and altering the hydrology over areas of several square kilometres is a major cause for concern. Further, the chemicals used in the fracking process are in many cases considered trade secrets. If we do not know what is being pumped into the ground how can we possibly predict the resulting environmental and health consequences? Lastly, fracking is a relatively recent activity. Not enough time has passed to permit proper scientific studies of the long-term effects. Decades ago, smoking
tobacco cigarettes was considered a healthy act. Today, after enough time has passed to reveal long-term effects, we know that smoking causes several serious health problems.

Should you decide to permit fracking, then I request the government to, at a minimum, mandate that industry pay for (i.e., not perform themselves or by an environmental consultancy owned by them) groundwater testing before a well is drilled. Water quality testing at regular intervals should also be mandated and paid for by industry (not the public or a private landowner). I can imagine a scenario where industry would claim that the
chemicals and hydrocarbons were in the water before fracking began. Having a baseline would help
a private landowner prove that fracking altered their water quality. Given the nature of cracking the underlying rocks to extract the natural gas, along with uncertainties in the hydrological nature of the aquifers, testing radii from the wells should be large (e,g., any private water wells within 10--20 km of the fracking area).

It is an unfortunate reality that the desire for immediate economic expansion often leads to greater costs---economic, environmental and societal---for future generations. With the findings of the CCA in mind, along with the immediate environmental fragmentation and degradation resulting from exploration and the supporting extraction infrastructure, I encourage the government to not permit fracking in Yukon. There is not enough high-quality data to properly identify the future risks of the activity. The lack of proof of harm that proponents of fracking claim is not proof of safety. It is an absence of data.

I endorse a moratorium on fracking for ten to twenty years. During this time, begin to establish an environmental baseline so that the effects of fracking can be properly quantified. Also, observe regions of intense fracking for signs of societal and environmental degradation.

History has shown western societies to be poor at the prediction of future impacts of economic and industrial activity. Please ensure that history does not repeat itself in Yukon; go slowly with fracking. Thank you for your time.

●  Vigneron, Anne (Sept 18, 2014)

Ni ici, ni ailleurs

Not here, not elsewhere
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  MANTEAUX, Michel (Sept 18, 2014)

Nous sommes responsables de l'état dans lequel nos enfants trouverons la planète. L'exploitation du gaz de schiste s'effectue au prix d'une dévastation des territoires. C'est pourquoi je soutiens l'action des opposants à son exploitation dans le Yukon.

We are responsible for the condition we leave the Earth in for our children. Destruction of the land is the price we pay for shale gas development. That is why I support everyone who is opposed to fracking in Yukon.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Collectif Stop Gaz de Schiste 07 (Sept 18, 2014)

Le Collectif 07 Stop au Gaz et huile de Schiste (Ardèche France) apporte tout son soutien aux militants anti-fracking du Yukon et demande au "Select Committee on risks & benefits on Fracking" de ne pas autoriser cette industrie qui sacagerait l'un des derniers territoires préservés de la planète qu'est le Yukon.

Le prix de revient élevé, la surestimation des gisements et des rendements, le rythme élevé de l’épuisement des gisements, la surestimation de la création d’emplois et les risques élevés qui pèsent sur l’économie, la santé et l’environnement font que ce secteur est fondamentalement non rentable.

No Gazaran
Collectif 07 top au Gaz et huile de Schiste (Ardèche France)

Our group, Collectif 07 Stop au Gaz et huile de Schiste (Ardèche, France), stands by everyone in Yukon who is against fracking, and asks the Select Committee on the Risks and Benefits of Fracking not to give the green light to this industry, which will destroy Yukon, one of the last unspoiled areas on Earth.

The high production costs, the overestimated deposits and yields, the rate at which the deposits become depleted, the overly optimistic job-creation predictions and the considerable risks to the economy, people’s health and the environment make this sector fundamentally non-viable.

No Gazaran, a documentary film
Collectif 07 top au Gaz et huile de Schiste (Ardèche, France)
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Johnson, Maureen (Sept 18, 2014)

Dear members of the Select Committee,
I find it hard to believe that you are even considering allowing this filthy and harmful industry to set about destroying your beautiful region!

May I suggest that you use the link below to see what the "shale gas revolution" really is, and whether, in fact, the promises of prosperity, jobs, independence, etc; are ever fulfilled. This document will give you the facts, fully documented, from impeccable sources.

Please use them to make the right decision for your region and for the future generations whose health and safety are in your hands!
Maureen Johnson, France

●  Delavaloire, Patrick (Sept 18, 2014)

Comment peut-on encore investir dans les énergies fossiles non conventionnelles quand le monde fait face à l'un des plus grand périls de son histoire à savoir: le dérèglement climatique? Si le Yukon veut se tourner vers l'avenir ce n'est pas en envisageant des solutions du passé. Les experts l'affirment: les zones arctiques et subarctiques seront les plus touchées par le réchauffement global de notre planète. Ne compromettez pas votre avenir, notre avenir, nous sommes tous concernés par les choix énergétiques partout dans le monde. Des solutions existent pour pallier aux besoins croissants en énergie, le Yukon regorge d'énergie propre, leur exploitation présente peut-être l'inconvénient de ne pas enrichir suffisamment les multinationales?

How can we still be pouring money into unconventional fossil fuels when the world is facing one of its biggest crises ever—climate change? Yukon shouldn’t be looking to the old ways of doing things as it contemplates the future. Experts say that our arctic and subarctic regions will be impacted the most by global warming. Do not jeopardize your future or ours. Energy choices that people make in other parts of the world affect us all. There are alternatives for meeting our growing energy needs. Yukon is awash with clean energy sources. Could the hitch be that multinationals aren’t making enough money out of them now?
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Jordan, Marcia (Sept 17, 2014)

Please do not even think about allowing fracking in the Yukon!

●  thenaisy, Magali (Sept 17, 2014)

je pense que l'exploitation du gaz de schiste n'est qu'une histoire de gros sous et de pouvoir pour que, toujours les mêmes se remplissent les poches au détriment des populations et de la préservation des espèces animales et végétales;ils s'en fichent rien n'est plus simple pour les "politicards" de faire avaler des couleuvres à leurs électeurs ; ils fricotent avec les industriels ;pouvoir et argent en boucle...

L'exploitation du gaz de schiste est un réel danger pour tous : ceux qui vont en tirer profit,ou leur famille ou amis, habitent ils dans le périmètre d'exploitation??? Nous ici , nous n'en voulons pas!

The way I see it, shale gas development is nothing but a power and money trip for the same bunch who gorge at the trough at the expense of the rest of us and the flora and fauna around us. These hacks, they could not care less. They will make the electorate believe anything. They are in cahoots with the big corporations. Birds of a feather when it comes to power and money…
Shale gas development is a real danger to everyone. What about those who are going to benefit from it, and their families and friends—do you think they live anywhere near the drilling sites? We don’t want that here!
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Clark, Stuart (Sept 17, 2014)

Ladies and Gentlemen:
I urge you to read the attached sober balanced assessment of the implications of your decision on fracking in the Yukon.  Like all Yukoners, I look to you to make decisions that will build a sustainable future for the territory.
Bad News for Obama: Fracking May Be Worse Than Burning Coal

●  LE GLAND, Jeremy (Sept 17, 2014)

Les dangers sanitaires et les dommages environnementaux (pollutions des eaux et des milieux associés) du "fracking" sont désormais bien connus et documentés de par le monde. C'est d'ailleurs la raison pour laquelle la France a interdit par un loi cette technique de forage sur son territoire.

Mais au-delà de cette technique et des autres actuellement expérimentées par des compagnies (arc électrique etc..), c'est l'idée même de d'exploiter les "shale gas" qui est une erreur.
- C'est un mirage économique : très peu d'emploi directs, pendant une durée limitée mais des sites dévastés pour longtemps! C'est une activité à visée spéculative: les compagnies pétrolières impliquées engrangent de gros bénéfices pendant que les territoires concernées ne récoltent que des miettes. Et quand le puit n'est plus assez rentable, la compagnie peut aller forer ailleurs, pendant que l'économie agricole ou touristique locale est ruinée!
- C'est une perte de temps et de moyens nécessaire à la lutte contre le changement climatique, qui impacte notamment les territoires arctiques

The risks to health and environmental damage (pollution of watercourses and surrounding areas) caused by fracking are well known and documented throughout the world. It is also why France has passed a law banning this drilling process within its borders.

Setting aside fracking and other methods that companies are currently experimenting with, such as electrical impulses, the very idea of developing shale gas is a mistake.
- It’s an economic illusion. It produces very few direct jobs. Those jobs that are generated last only a short time, while the areas around the extraction sites are wrecked for years to come! It is also a speculative undertaking. The oil companies involved rake in huge profits, while the regions where the fracking is done end up with the scraps. And when the wells aren’t viable enough anymore, the companies will go and drill somewhere else. In the meanwhile, local agriculture and tourism have been ruined!
- It’s a waste of time and resources that are needed in the fight against climate change, which is affecting the arctic regions, for example.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  chrestia, Hourcade (Sept 17, 2014)

comment pouvez vous dévaster une si belle terre , occupée par des personnes qui vont subir cette dévastation
pour récupérer des énergies inutiles puisque seuls les humains s'en servent abusivement

How can you destroy such a beautiful place that is inhabited by people who are going to suffer, all for pointless sources of energy—pointless because humans alone use them to excess.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Nadia, Donati (Sept 17, 2014)


L'humanité est en train de commettre un suicide collectif en accélérant sans cesse le réchauffement climatique par la consommation à outrance d'hydrocarbures. La revue Nature a publié en juillet 2011 un article issue de nombreuses contributions scientifiques démontrant que sous les effets conjugués du réchauffement climatique, de la pollution et de la destruction des espaces naturels, l'ensemble des écosystèmes de la planète vont s'effondrer d'ici la fin du siècle. Il est impossible à l'humanité de survivre sans ces écosystèmes naturels, dont la valeur est d'ailleurs inestimable et ne devrait en aucun cas être ramenée à un seul raisonnement économique de court terme. L'exploitation des gaz et pétroles de schiste détruit de façon définitive des espaces naturels et le s espèces qui y vivent depuis des millénaires, elle pollue gravement et de façon irréversible la nature, elle contribue fortement au réchauffement climatique. Cette exploitation constitue donc un crime d'une extrême gravité pour les populations actuelles et encore plus pour les jeunes générations qui vont vivre sur une planète dévastée.
Il est temps de mettre un terme à cet aveuglement et de se rappeler que l'accumulation d'argent ne mène pas au bonheur ni ne justifie des crimes contre l'humanité.


Humanity is in the process of committing mass suicide by continuing to speed up global warming through the excessive use of hydrocarbons. The July 2011 issue of the journal Nature carried an article based on numerous scientific contributions that showed that owing to the combined effects of global warming, pollution and the destruction of natural spaces, the Earth’s ecosystems will collapse by the end of this century. Humanity cannot survive without these natural ecosystems whose value is incalculable and should never be reduced solely to short-term economic considerations. Shale oil and gas development permanently destroys natural spaces and the species that have been living in them for millennia. It causes serious and irreversible environmental pollution. It also plays a major role in global warming. Such development is therefore a crime of extreme seriousness not only for people now, but also especially for younger generations who will be living on a devastated planet.
The time has come to put a stop to this wilful blindness and to remember that wealth accumulation does not lead to happiness and cannot justify crimes against humanity.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  PASTOR MICHEL (Sept 17, 2014)

J'ai appris avec effarement les projets d'exploitation des Gaz de Schiste dans le Yucon , ...Nous sommes à un moment charnière de notre civilisation , on continue à sucer et exploiter la dernière goutte de pétrole , de Gaz , d'Huile et de Gaz de Schiste ??? ...Ou bien on se met tous autour d'une table pour préparer et mettre réellement en place une "TRANSITION ÉNERGÉTIQUE " ????..... Car , oui , c'est prouvé , l'EXPLOITATION DES GAZ DE SCHISTE EST" UNE CATASTROPHE AVÉRÉE " ;

I was shocked to hear about the shale gas development plans in Yukon. We are at a crucial point in human civilization. And we’re continuing to milk the Earth for all it’s worth, right down to the last drop of oil and gas, and shale oil and gas. Instead, what if we all got together to lay the groundwork for and put into action a real plan to make the transition to other sources of energy? It’s been proven that shale gas development is a disaster:
- It pollutes the water table.
- It pollutes the air.
- It causes more earthquakes.
- The land becomes pock-marked and disfigured, and thus impaired for decades.
- It creates the illusion of sustainable employment.
- It creates the illusion of economic spinoffs.
- The rates of cancer and disease near the drilling wells go up, and residents can’t leave because they can’t sell their properties.
- Estimated shale oil and gas reserves can be bubbles that burst (e.g., as has happened in Poland).
- The methods used to treat the waste water—polluted with chemicals, heavy metals, uranium-containing residues and potentially novel bacteria because you have to drill so far down (2,000 to 3,000 metres)—have proven ineffective. So, they drill again and inject this polluted sludge into the ground.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Durutte, Aristide (Sept 16, 2014)

L'exploitation des gaz de schistes est déjà en soi une aberration. Mais quand on détruit un territoire préservé comme l'est le Yukon c'est plus que cela. C'est un désastre écologique et surtout moral.
Que faudra-t-il pour faire cesser le saccage de tout ce qui existe ? Que nous en soyons venu à survivre d'une manière complètement artificielle. C'est sûr que dans ce cas la production de ces moyens de survie conduira à doper la croissance et à stimuler l'économie. Mais qu'en sera-t-il de la vie humaine ?
Je suis contre l'exploitation des gaz de schistes au Yukon ! comme ailleurs.
Aristide D

Shale gas development is already an aberration in itself. But, when you destroy such an unspoiled place as Yukon, it’s more than that. It’s not only an environmental, but also a moral disaster especially.
What will it take to stop the pillaging of everything on this planet? It is sad that we have come to live in such a completely unnatural way. Of course, in this case, development of this resource as a means to ensure livelihoods will boost growth and stimulate the economy. But what about human life?
I am against shale gas development everywhere, including in Yukon!
Aristide D
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Lagarde, Laurent (Sept 16, 2014)

Leurs profits valent mieux que nos vies ! Encore un territoire qui risque d'être saccagé par les compagnies pétrolières et gazières pour ramasser du gaz de schiste qui est une énergie non viable dans le temps, polluante et économiquement non rentable. Quel gâchis ! Luttons et luttez contre cette ineptie ! protégeons nos terres encore vierge de tout massacre écologique. Nous sommes avec vous. D'autres alternatives existent : éolien, hydraulique...Réinventons notre monde pour qu'il devienne propre, écologiquement viable et apaisé. NON AU GAZ ET HUILE DE SCHISTE !

Their profits are worth more than our lives! Yet another region that could be ruined by oil and gas companies interested in shale gas, which is a non-viable energy source over time, pollutes the environment and is not cost-effective in economic terms. What a waste! Let’s all fight against this folly! Let’s protect what pristine areas we still have from environmental disaster! We’re with you. There are other options (e.g., wind, hydroelectric). Let’s reinvent our world and make it clean, environmentally viable and peaceful. SAY NO TO SHALE GAS AND OIL!
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  VELLIET, François (Sept 16, 2014)

L'exploitation des gaz et pétrole de schiste est un désastre écologique doublé d'un mirage économique. Elle permet aux énergies fossiles, dévastatrices pour l'environnement, de gagner quelques années de plus, quelques années qui seront fatales pour le climat. Le Yukon peut devenir un modèle de développement des énergies renouvelables, tant éoliennes qu'hydrauliques, voire solaires. NON AUX GAZ ET PETROLE DE SCHISTE !

Shale oil and gas development is both an environmental disaster and an economic illusion. It will extend our supply of fossil fuels by a few years, but the impact of this environmentally harmful energy source on the climate in the meantime will be devastating. Yukon can become a model for the development of renewable energies—wind, hydroelectric and solar. SAY NO TO SHALE GAS AND OIL!
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Larrouy, Lucie (Sept 16, 2014)

Bonjour, j'habite en France. On m'a dit la situation dans laquelle se trouve le Yucon actuellement par rapport aux extractions de gaz de schiste. Je m'y oppose formellement. Je trouve inadmissible que l'on saccage ce magnifique territoire en forant des puits qui viendront ensuite contaminer l'eau potable des habitants. nous en France nous luttons également contre ce procédé afin de préserver l'environnement et la santé de l'être humain.
Je suis contre toute forme d'extraction des gaz et huiles de schiste. Je suis pour la protection de notre planète !
Courage à vous, Lucie

Hello from France. I have heard about the current situation in Yukon as regards shale gas development. I am totally against it. I find it unacceptable that you would pillage this magnificent territory by drilling wells that would then contaminate people’s drinking water. Here in France, we are also fighting against this extraction method in order to protect the environment and people’s health.
I am against all forms of shale oil and gas extraction. I am for protecting our planet!
All the best, Lucie.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Kinvig, Darren (Sept 16, 2014)

Other than a means to attain a substance that has an economical benefit to only handful of people, with no long lasting benefit. why, Why, Why would you take any chances with Fracking? Why would you take these chances in any parts of the world let alone here in the Yukon ? This is a place we chose to call home and raise our children. A place where there is absolutely no room for taking these kinds of chances. On behalf of myself and my family you have four very firm No answer's to whether or not we would like to see Fracking take place in the Yukon. Please do not allow this to take place inside the borders of a place that is very dear to our hearts and a place we call home.

●  Mercadier, Françoise (Sept 16, 2014)

Partout où le gaz de schiste a été exploité ce n'est que dévastation des ressources en eau, dégradation des paysages, mise en péril de la qualité de vie des habitants. Le Yukon est un territoire très faiblement peuplé, il pourrait passer pour une proie facile des industriels mais soyez sûr d'une chose: les multinationales ne pourront pas mettre en danger votre magnifique pays sans que le monde le sache et condamne tout acte irresponsable! NON AU GAZ DE SCHISTE!

Wherever shale gas has been developed, water resources have been destroyed, the landscape has been ruined, and people’s quality of life has been compromised. Yukon is such a sparsely populated territory that it could be considered easy prey for corporations. But you can be sure of one thing: multinationals won’t be able to endanger your magnificent country without the whole world knowing and condemning any irresponsible actions! SAY NO TO SHALE GAS!
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Rancy, Caroline (Sept 16, 2014)

J'ai appris avec stupéfaction qu'il était envisagé d'exploiter du gaz de schiste dans le Yukon. Entretenant des liens étroits avec votre pays, je ne peux que m'indigner à l'idée que l'intérêt de quelques industriels peu scrupuleux puisse mettre en péril un territoire aussi préservé que le vôtre. Il est possible de développer l'activité économique et l'emploi tout en préservant l'avenir de nos enfants. Il est de notre devoir à tous, où que nous soyons, de veiller à léguer une Terre saine aux générations futures. N'en doutez pas: le monde vous regarde!

I was stupefied to learn that shale gas development is being contemplated in Yukon. Given the close ties I have to your country, I cannot help but be outraged at the thought that the interests of a few unscrupulous corporations could jeopardize such an unspoiled region as yours. It is possible to grow the economy and employment and at the same time safeguard our children’s future. Every one of us, wherever we are, must ensure that we leave a healthy Earth for future generations. You can be sure that the world is watching you!
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Rembe, Reiner (Sept 15, 2014)

Written Submission

●  Greetham, Sue (Sept 15, 2014)

Impose a 10 year moratorium on Fracking in Yukon followed by a full review.
Wait until the results are in on Fracking.
Our territorial environment is far too fragile and takes far too long to recover from mistakes.

Wait and see!

●  Tyrner, Colleen (Sept 9, 2014)

Summary: What is Fracking? (Yes..I understand what Fracking is.. do you?)
Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is the process of taking millions of gallons of water, mixing it with tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals – including known carcinogens – and pumping it all underground at extreme pressure to break up rock formations and release oil or natural gas. This is not the "fracking" that the oil and gas companies say has been in existence and used safely since 1967. I recently read a scathing indictment of any government who did not encourage fracking..the article actually said..its been used safely since 1967. The technology and chemicals used today bear very little resemblance to the mining practices of yesteryear.

Why is Fracking Dangerous?
New techniques and technologies used in fracking are more intensive and riskier than conventional drilling, making the process more dangerous than ever.

Example: "Another day, another oil train accident, it seems. On the night of January 7, a train carrying crude oil and propane derailed near Plaster Rock in New Brunswick, Canada. A day later the fire continued as locals evacuated, unsure if they were being exposed to toxic fumes.

It’s a familiar story. 2013 went out with a bang in North Dakota when a train carrying crude oil from the Bakken shale derailed and exploded on Dec 30. The ensuing fireballs and toxic smoke caused the evacuation many of Casselton’s 2,300 residents.

Fracking has unleashed a firestorm of drilling in the Bakken (a rock formation under parts of North Dakota, Montana and Saskatchewan). The Casselton accident was the third rail accident in six months in North America involving oil trains from the Bakken (it’s unclear if the Plaster Rock train was carrying Bakken oil). The most horrific was the July derailment and explosion of a train that killed 47 people in the small town of Lac-Megantic in Quebec. The second occurred in Alabama in November.

Fracking brings rampant environmental and economic problems to communities across the country. Scientists now believe that natural gas is likely worse than coal in terms of driving global climate change in the coming decades.

Example: "Those who live along train routes aren't the only ones facing safety risks from the oil and gas industry. NPR reports that accidents among workers in the industry are on the rise—bigtime. From 2009 to 2012 the industry added 23 percent more workers but “the hiring spree has come with a terrible price: Last year, 138 workers were killed on the job — an increase of more than 100 percent since 2009,” wrote Andrew Schneider and Marilyn Geewax for NPR . “In fact, the fatality rate among oil and gas workers is now nearly eight times higher than the all-industry rate of 3.2 deaths for every 100,000 workers.”

How can Fracking Affect Me?
Fracking accidents and leaks pollute rivers, streams and underground sources of drinking water. Regions with heavy drilling and fracking have elevated levels of smog and other airborne pollutants, including some carcinogens. Communities in these regions also face an onslaught of heavy truck traffic — often either laden with dangerous chemicals used in drilling and fracking or with the resulting toxic waste. Drilling and fracking industrialize rural and urban communities alike, threatening public health and destroying property values for many landowners. We hear about water, but we don't hear so much about air pollution.

Fracking is not going to go away. There is just too much money that greedy governments want. Canada is near a state of active tax payers revolt and governments are actively seeking ways to increase government income (yeah.. they really aren't considering lowering their pensions or dissolving the Senate) without increasing taxes. Oil and gas companies are promising millions, billions to be allowed to introduce fracking. That being said, the only way the citizenry can become involved in protecting their health, their families health, the environment is to say "no" to the whole idea. That isn't going to happen. Greed is a powerful tool and the oil and gas companies are experts at utilizing it. I offer the following suggestions regarding safeguards:

Putting the most sensitive lands, including critical watersheds, completely off limits to fracking;
Not allowing leaky systems by setting clean air standards that ensure methane leaks are well under one percent of production to reduce global warming pollution, and requiring green completions and other techniques to reduce air pollution;
Mandating sound well drilling and construction standards by requiring the strongest well siting, casing and cementing and other drilling best practices;
Protecting the landscape, air, and water from pollution by closing Clean Air, Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water loopholes, reducing toxic waste, and holding toxic oil and gas waste to the same standards as other types of hazardous waste, funding robust inspection and enforcement programs, and disclosing fully all chemicals;
Using gas to replace dirtier fossil fuels like coal by prioritizing renewables and efficiency, implementing recently established mercury, sulfur and other clean air standards, and setting strong power plant carbon pollution standards; and
Allowing communities to protect themselves and their future by restricting fracking through comprehensive zoning and planning.

There are some big, familiar energy giants paying huge dividends to their stock holders – Chevron Corp. (CVX), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) and ConocoPhillips Co. (COP), just to name a few. Their families aren't living here, and they couldn't care less about our families. They say fracking is really safe and by golly, look at all the money we're going to bring to the territory. Who am I going to believe? The guy who stands to lose a lot of money? or the guy thats just trying to keep his family and the environment safe?

I began studying fracking when the Yukon started having earthquakes..more than ever before..and stronger.. 5 this year, one of them a 6 pointer. "The culprit of earthquakes near fracking sites is not believed to be the act of drilling and fracturing the shale itself, but rather the disposal wells. Disposal wells are the final resting place for used drilling fluid. These waste wells are located thousands of feet underground, encased in layers of concrete. They usually store the waste from several different wells.There are more than 50,000 disposal wells in Texas servicing more than 216,000 active drilling wells, according the the Railroad Commission. Each well uses about 4.5 million gallons of chemical-laced water, according to" Alaska is fracking near our borders and along the San Andrea fault.

Most of what I write here comes from others, studies and reports that are public domain on the internet.
Thanks for reading.
Colleen Tyrner

●  Teslin Tlingit Council (Sept 8, 2014)

Teslin Tlingit Council Submission

●  Wisemyn, Sharon (Sept 5, 2014)

I do not think that any impartial review of the facts can reach any other conclusion than that the risks of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) are huge and irreversible. And there is local, national and worldwide support for a moratorium on all fracking. See the AVAAZ petition:

Look at any aerial photos of the Fort Nelson landscape to see the scars. Then consider what you can't see, the polluting of groundwater and streams, the disruption of wildlife and the way of life of the local First Nations. All of this because of a refusal to invest in clean, renewable energy. Instead there was an opting for illusive "benefits" which turn out to be investment returns for some gas and oil industry corporations.

We have a choice here in the Yukon. You on the committee have a choice. Will the Yukon be in the forefront of what is needed to protect our ecosystem? Or will the Yukon be opened for another grab at resources with the results being a terrible legacy for our children? Future remediation will not likely even be possible. But we can be sure that any burden will be paid for by us citizens and not by the corporations.

●  Devillard, Ann (Sept 4, 2014)

Fracking has proved harmless in many ways, and costly even regarding its very economical results, wherever it's been tested in the world. Abandon fracking, in the Yukon as well as everywhere on earth!

●  Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Chief and Council (Aug 31, 2014)

Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Chief and Council Submission

●  Blanc, Odile (Aug 31, 2014)


* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Nicolas, Dineur (Aug 31, 2014)

The World is watching you.

●  Christian, Fontaine (Aug 30, 2014)

Depuis la France je m'autorise à vous interpeler : ne faites pas passer de mercantiles intérêts économiques avant la protection de notre planète. Notre planète ne nous appartient pas, elle appartient à nos enfants. A ce titre je vous conjure de refuser tout projet de fracturation hydraulique. En vous remerciant de votre attention. Christian Fontaine.

I implore you from France: Do not put business interests ahead of protecting our planet.
The Earth does not belong to us—it belongs to our children.
I therefore beg you—say no to hydraulic fracturing, now and forever.
Thank you for hearing me out.
Christian Fontaine.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Aug 25, 2014)

Dear Committee,
I would like to put to your attention these 3 links.

As your recommendations to the Yukon government will influence the fact that, beside drilling will be permitted in non permafrost ground, which is polluting the ground, even worst drilling will be permitted where there is permafrost. Scientists speak clearly about it in the second link.

I hope you will use your common sense and recommend a ban on exploring, fracking, stimulating fossil fuel in the Yukon because the Yukon geology only shows unconventional resources and the 3d sceismic in Eagle Plain is a set up for fracking. It is not too late to turn to renewable energy such as solar and wind.
Thanks for your time.
Jacqueline Vigneux

Tony Ingraffea, Global Warming 101,
Arctic Emergency: Scientists Speak (1080p HD),
27 Powerful Photos That Show The Reality Of Climate Change Today,

●  Cérès, Christophe (Aug 22, 2014)

Cher comité,
Vous avez entre vos mains la responsabilité de détruire une des dernières terres préservées de la planète ou de la sauvegarder.

Les ressources énergétiques du Yukon sont immenses: biomasse, houille blanche, énergie éolienne...
Les Yukonnais ont la possibilité de développer leur territoire, soutenir la croissance, les emplois, l'économie et l'innovation en se tournant vers les énergies vertes et propres. Succomber aux sirènes des compagnies gazières c'est sacrifier la santé et la qualité de vie de la population, mais aussi l'avenir prometteur de l'économie touristique, et l'image privilégiée à l'international d'un territoire qui a su, jusqu'à aujourd'hui, gardé un attrait unique.

Toutes les expériences canadiennes en matière de fracturation hydraulique ont été l'occasion de prouver que cette technique n'entraîne de bénéfices que pour les compagnies extractrices et dévastation des zones exploitées. Ne soyez pas dupes, les arguments avancés par les compagnies sont les mêmes partout dans le monde. On vous dit, que vous Canadiens, vous ferez mieux que les Américains et que les techniques de fracturation seront propres. Ne soyez pas dupes! Pour promouvoir l'exploitation et l'exploration des gaz de schiste en France, on nous assure également que l'on fera mieux, nous Français, que les Américains mais aussi mieux que les Canadiens notamment en Colombie Britannique et en Alberta. Comment ne pas voir là une scandaleuse manipulation jouant sur les fiertés nationales? Toutes ces man?uvres ne soulignent que l'inc apacité d'extraire proprement le gaz de schiste.

En tant que membres de ce comité vous avez la possibilité aujourd'hui de refuser l'extraction du gaz de schiste dans le Yukon et ainsi préserver la santé et la qualité de vie des habitants mais aussi les emplois et l'économie de ce territoire pour les générations futures. Ne sacrifiez pas ce pays unique que vous avez le privilège d'habiter, ne soyez pas dupes aujourd'hui des man?uvres des compagnies gazières et demain victimes de leurs actes. Refusez l'extraction des gaz de schiste.
Christophe Cérès, un Français passionné du Yukon.

Destroying one of the last preserved regions on Earth or protecting it - responsibility for that decision lies ultimately in your hands.

Yukon has tremendous energy resources: biomass, hydroelectric power and wind energy, to name but a few.
Yukoners can build their territory and support growth, jobs, the economy and innovation by turning to clean, green energies. Giving in to the siren calls of the gas companies will sacrifice not only Yukoners’ health and their quality of life, but also the promising future of the tourism industry and Yukon’s international reputation as a place that remains unique to this day.

Every attempt at hydraulic fracturing in Canada has shown that this technique benefits only the companies that extract the resource, and ruins the areas they work in. Don’t fall for the arguments put forward by the companies, which are the same the world over. They tell you that you Canadians will do a better job than the Americans and that the fracturing methods used will be clean ones. Don’t believe it! To promote shale gas development and exploration in France, we too are being told that we French will do a better job than the Americans and better than the Canadians in British Columbia and Alberta. How can that not be viewed as a shameful attempt at manipulation based on national pride? All of these tactics merely highlight the inability to extract shale gas cleanly.

As members of the Committee, you have it in your hands today to say no to shale gas extraction in Yukon and thereby preserve not only Yukoners’ health and quality of life, but also Yukon jobs and the economy for future generations. Don’t sacrifice this unique territory that you are privileged to live in. Don’t become tomorrow’s victims by falling for the gas companies’ tactics today. Say no to shale gas extraction.
Christophe Cérès, a citizen of France who is passionate about Yukon.
* This text is a translation of the original in French for information purposes only. In case of a discrepancy, the French original will prevail. *

●  Johns, Johnny C. (July 26, 2014)

thank you so much for opertunity to educate carcross people on the dangers of fracking and all the horrorific chemicals that are left in mother earth and is not bio-degradable, if thats the right word.I am a person who cares for the land and i am 60. In my 60 yrs i have seen much change in the yukon. I also took training called, caring for the land. I am very much in need of a job caring for the land. It seems that no one needs enviromental monitors meddling in their mines.

●  Schwarz, Carsten (July 16, 2014)

To Yukon Select Committee on Fracking:
I am writing to you because I am very concerned that your government might begin to allow fracking in the Yukon.  I have been coming to the Yukon each year, in summer and sometimes in winter, for 6 weeks per year, since 1994, along with my family and several friends.  We own a car which we store and have upkeep done on each year, by a local business (Subaru), and we buy all of our supplies in Whitehorse each year.  We also hire an aviation company (Black Sheep) to take us into the wilderness rivers, and we will not be doing that again if the Yukon allows fracking.

I hope that you realize that if the Yukon is fracked, and the landscapes are ruined, you will not continue to have the income from tourism that you currently have.  As you know, once the oil and gas companies get into a country, they will continue to drill and frack until an the entire area is covered with well pads.  They have to do this to make their operations financially viable - they cannot do just a small amount of fracking, as it is not financially feasible.

The lost income to the Yukon government from tourism, if you allow fracking in your territory, will be far greater than any income you might generate from the oil companies.  In other areas where fracking has been allowed, there have been very limited benefits to the governments.

Our government in Germany is currently considering a complete ban on fracking, because they know how damaging it is and how much water is taken out of the hydrological cycle in order to maintain the operations.  The consequences of all of this are devastating to any area that has been fracked. 

Please consider the economic, environmental, and health impacts of fracking on your territory, and please keep the Yukon free of this terrible devastation. 
With respect, 
Carsten Schwarz
Pfrungen, Germany

●  Dick, Hammond (July 8, 2014)

First of all, I want to say that I do not support hydraulic fracturing in the Kaska Traditional Territory without approval from the majority of our people in any given area. I know that hydraulic fracturing is taking place in north eastern British Columbia as we speak. It is taking place within a stone throw of our Traditional Territory and we are concerned. The Fort Nelson First Nation are struggling and seriously weighing the pros and cons of this practice because they see first hand the benefits and damages that come from this practice. They too will have to decide the future of these developments for their future generations to come, much the same way we have to as well.

We do not know the full extent of the practice of extracting Oil and Gas using hydraulic fracturing. I am glad there is a Select Committee for Yukon that is touring the Yukon to assess the risks and benefits of this practice for all Yukoners.
I want to express my concerns to the Select Committee that I do not support this practice. I recently seen a news clip of the industry using this practice in Oklahoma, USA that the scientists have studied this practice over a number of years to determine the damage created from this practice. They recently released their findings and the results were astounding. They found that prior to the State allowing this practice to proceed, there was minimal earth quake activity. They find that since they allowed hydraulic fracturing to take place in their State, they find that there was a huge increase in earth quake activity in the areas of hydraulic fracturing.

Now I know that the southeast Yukon is being targeted to extract Oil and Gas for a host of different reasons, but mainly economic development. I don't have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is to see that proper procedures carried out for these developments to take place. You know and I know that the question of the Settlement of Aboriginal Title and Interests is still outstanding for the Kaska Nation. We have provided both governments with our proposed governing structures and have identified our Traditional Territory as part of exchanging information to settle that outstanding question. We have seen this junior government take the lead at the negotiations table in regards to Resource development. Now the big question is whether the governments are willing to go back to the table after another land mark decision from the Canadian Supreme Court?  

●  Sundin, Lori et al. (July 7, 2014)

Lori Sundin, et al. Submission

●  Maje Raider, Ann (July 3, 2014)

As a member of the Kaska Nation who lives in the South-east Yukon I am very concerned about Fracking. I don't believe there is ever a safe way to frack. I have watched the news and have read many articles about fracking and I am convinced that this would not be good thing for the Yukon or any other area. We live on the Tintina trench and it is concerning to imagine the potential earth quakes that would be creating as a result of fracking. In addition, I can't imagine agreeing to something that has the potential of contaminating our water or causing harm to the wildlife. I believe the Yukon Government should hold a Yukon plebiscite prior to making a decision on this important issue. We are all aware of the huge environmental hazards of tracking and the stakes are much too high to risk destroying our homeland. 

●  Wendling, Gilles (June 28, 2014)

Here is a document I produced for Nova Scotia (Province also going through a review process).  It summarizes some recent issues, referring to very recently issued reports (including the May 2014 Waterloo University report, attached).  I thought it could provide some recent information to your group.  Let me know if you need additional information.
Best regards, Gilles

●  Donnesay, Margaret et al. (June 23, 2014)

Margaret Donnesay, et al. Submission

●  Devries, John (June 20, 2014)

Reviewing the various comments on this Web site one would think Fracking is going to end life as we know it today. What we have is the opinions of the Whitehorse environmental community and others destroying the rural communities abilities to survive. As a lot of people may or may not be aware the so called gas tax revenues or royalties from the south east Yukon gas field are a major source of revenue for the communities tax gas grant . I would propose that the Fracking issue be broken up into regions. In the south east where existing wells are producing it is no secret that they are running out of gas and the life time of these wells can be increased substantially if they were permitted to Frack. I am not saying this should be done without the safe guards of looking at underground formations ,water tables etc to make sure it can be done safely.

Just reviewing the information and submissions thus far a high percentage from one individual the whole argument is so one sided. All kinds of allegations are made without the other side being able to counter the allegation. Many of the submissions state the oil companies are horrible destroy the environment and yet nay sayers drive their cars to work fly to Vancouver on jets.etc. If Columbus had to have a screening done before he set out on his voyage we wouldn't be here nor would there would be a Alaska hi way.There are some people and groups opposed to everything. Every thing we do has some kind of an impact and leaves a footprint. What we have to do is be smart and minimize that impact. It is much more then a question of risk and benefits.

The rural communities way of life is being threatened buy over zealous outside forces that have very little understanding of what is really going on. The forestry practices have been made so convoluted that it is uneconomical to continue. Yes environment is important but what may be acceptable in the southeast may not be acceptable near Whitehorse so the decisions should ultimately be made here. From what I hear on the street in Watson Lake most would support Fracking here if it can be done in a safe manner. There are always a few wildcards but that is the case everywhere and much is based on false information. LFN should also be a major player in the decisions as they are part owner of a rig, the land and many have been employed making seismic lines etc.

It is clear that there have been mistakes made and we can learn from those mistakes. It is no longer a new technology or process and I feel the benefits far outweigh the negative. Already the price of fossil fuels are a huge drain on the rural residents as we don't have the higher paying jobs you see in Whitehorse. We love our lakes and rivers I myself work as a wilderness guide but also need to heat my home, drive a vehicle get flown into the remote locations I truly believe that Fracking can be done with a minimum footprint and minimum impact on the environment. I have visited sites in North Dakota and was impressed with the horizontal drilling techniques being used as well as the safe guards that are in place.
In closing the issue should be addressed on a regional basis.

●  Sabo, Angela (June 16, 2014)

Please add this to your comments.
Open letter to the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (June 14, 2014)

Hello Committee,
I need to put to your attention this new link: Abandoned Oil Wells Spouting Significant Levels of Methane: Study
And remind you that no best practices can stop that
Please think about the next generations and say NO to Fracking.
Thank you. Jacqueline Vigneux

●  Herbert, Yuill (May 30, 2014)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I read on CBC that of the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing. I recently conducted a detailed and systematic analysis of the latest research on the climate change impacts of hydraulic fracturing for a similar review in Nova Scotia that is relevant to your work. It is attached.
Hydraulic Fracking Submission 

Sincerely, Yuill Herbert

●  MacDonald, Edward (May 29, 2014)

Given the lack of data on emissions and health effects of hydraulic fracturing I want to see a moratorium put in place.

The risks outweigh the benefits.

●  Kos, Cam (May 29, 2014)

Comments on risks / benefits:
- money for southern investors
- money from southern investors going back out to southern companies to pay for southern materials
- foreign investment money paid out to foreign workers (re - Wolverine)
- money flowing back out of the Yukon to foreign investors offsetting that investment money for a LONG TERM net loss to the Yukon (though it may look good on the government 'books' for a political term or three)
- money leaving the Yukon with more southern workers (See NWT diamond mines for reference - the NWT smoke and mirrors show of the 1990's -that I too was lead to believe - hoping for more residents and growing the economy of NWT and Yellowknife did not materialize with the current modern way of mining and fly in-fly out and the community only received the negatives of more drugs on the streets, more people on income support, and taxes going up to pay for added infrastructure) NWT added a 1% (now 2%) wage tax to try to (not very successfully) trap dollars from leaving to southern Canada or outside Canada.

- poisoned water *** how can you seriously allow anyone to stuff something into the ground and not know what it is?!?! Proprietary 'secret' formulas MY EYE! If health Canada can make McDonalds list the contents of their 'secret sauce' but without amounts of each, YUKON could demand full disclosure up front and MANDATE random govt sampling (at company expense) to ensure conformity... but I would guess that will never happen as we would all then see the true contents of what is going into the ground, and eventually into our water supply...
(have politicians learned nothing from the PCB issues and now cleanup costs from the Dew Line days?!?)
- more earthquakes, and larger ones (see USGS earthquake data from Oklahoma linked to hydraulic fracturing now being buried, and powerful political forces force USGS to soften their comments) . Just looking at the USGS global earthquakes map of ones over 2.5, 99% of earthquakes happen on or within 100 miles of a fault line but not the ones in the middle of Oklahoma, and governments are now telling citizens to prepare for more and larger earthquakes and make buildings more earthquake proof. You have to be an ignorant illiterate to not see what is going on there. ADD IN THE TINTINA TRENCH of YUKON and you have DISASTER waiting to happen!
- diversion of funds from better energy sources, or research into better and more effective and efficient sources
- and the usual 'it does not promote green energy' but that is not my highest personal concern.
- tax payers end up on the hook for cleanups. No brainwashing or commercials on TV talking about all the money the generous companies pay for cleanup deposits can prove otherwise to those with a strong sound mind. The money wasted on trying to CONvince people otherwise just shows the people behind pushing out the advertising all know in their heart of hearts that what they are doing is wrong, and not the best thing for the citizens.
- finally, YUKON has the continued opportunity to be the GLOBAL LEADER in preservation and tourism, and those with greedy personal interest wish to permenantly destroy and throw away one of the final chances to be a WORLD LEADER in something instead of a BLIND FOLLOWER using the excuse 'well this province or state allows it so maybe we should to!' Show true leadership and moral fortitude... don't go with the flow and just SAY NO!

If you have read this far, I thank you, and hope you make a decision your great grand children will be proud of, and feel good telling others about your role in this decision.
Thank you.

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (May 19, 2014)

Hello Ms Mc Cloud,
Could you pass this message to the members of your committee, please?

Before you hear all these doctors that will suggest you the ''GO SLOW'' approach, I would like if you could hear Doctor Antony Ingraffea on fracking and health.

Doctor Ingraffea was a doctor that many many Yukoners wanted you to invite to the leg.
Dr Ingraffea on health

Also, here is a long time worker of the oil & gas industry speaking out
2-Rick "Mac" Sawyer Fracking vs. Health

And now (as of May 14th) I want you to be aware that the list of the harmed by the oil industry has 6028 people harmed, it is about the fifth of the population on Yukon that is already suffering. (and these are only the ones with no gag order and no animals are counted either)
Please, remember that in your final decision.
Fracking cannot be done safely.
Thank you
Jacqueline Vigneux

●  Sabo, Angela (May 12, 2014)

Northern Cross at Eagle plains has attempted to find groundwater resources which are needed for oil and gas development. Permafrost is up to 1000 m deep in the area. Even with drill holes over 200 m deep no groundwater resources were found. Eagle Plains Lodge has access to water resources which barely covers their demand.
The Yukon water Board will have to issue water licenses the oil and gas companies. Where does the Committee suggest the water for the hydraulic fracturing process will come from? Who is responsible if rivers and wetlands dry out? Chapter 14 of the UFA guarantees FN unaltered water quantity and rate of flow. How will this be possible with this type of extraction?
Chespeake's own research shows that radioactive pollution will increase to over 200 times to initial mg/l (in the recaptured fluid) during the fracturing process. The maximum is reached around 200 hours after the injection of the fracturing fluid. Only an average of 25% of the 'flowback water' is usually recovered (see Marcellus Shield, P.A.). Where will the recovered water be recycled since we don't have facilities to deal with radioactive water pollution in the Yukon? And how do we know if the unrecoverable water will not enter our surface water resources later on?
I am looking forward to your answers.
Yours truly

●  Burnet, Ross (May 8, 2014)

It’s fine that we have environmental assessments for development projects and people to study techniques and effects. But with fracking, we don’t need to find a succinct phrase in a scientific report that will counteract the position of shale gas developers in order to rightfully and dutifully oppose fracking. We don’t need to rephrase proof that it is really truly and seriously unhealthy to people and habitat so the companies or the government agencies can say, "Well you have a point." We have a point without doing that. Countless other jurisdictions in the USA & Canada have already been through the assessment of negative results, effects, and serious health hazards. Search “fracking” and see how many authoritative sources are about its horrors. We’ve seen the landscapes. We’ve heard the 1st person stories and the credible opinions from countless scientists. Cities are banning fracking. We’ve heard warnings from lots of fracked jurisdictions. Industry got this one wrong. Government needs to use its common sense and listen to the monumental wisdom of the rest of the world in addition to its citizenry. No fracking in Yukon. None.

●  Curtis, Dan (Apr 23, 2014)

Dear Select Committee Members:
On behalf of Mayor and Council of the City of Whitehorse, please find attached a submission to the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing.
See attached Submission

●  Osborne, Debra (Apr 15, 2014)

I've just scanned through the many submissions by Yukoners regarding their opinions about whether fracking should be permitted in the Yukon. It is most heartening to see that an overwhelming number of the respondents agree that fracking should not be permitted here. I'd like my name added to that list.

Do not permit fracking in the Yukon! All the evidence suggests that it is an unsafe practise.

Governments must listen to the people if democracy is to be upheld.

●  Sharp, Clara (Apr 12, 2014)

Members of the Select committee tasked with considering dialogue on potential risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing in our Yukon.

I would suggest this not happen until we really understand the risks and impacts on the land, waters and wildlife and humans.

I visited a friend's horse breeding farm outside of Olds this past winter. Fortunately they denied access to their lands and roadway but they are impacted by 11 hydraulic fracturing sites just over their fence line. The noise produced is unpleasant. The bright lights on 24/7 is disturbing and as yet unknow if it will have an impact on their breeding herd. Fortunately they denied the request to use their gravel road for access to the fracking sites but there was no way to prevent the big trucks using the secondary roadway. When that road was eventually paved, no concept existed that future use would include the movement of heavy equipment and oversized trucks. The pavement is rapidly deteriorating under the increased weight and traffic. The fracking company was required to put up a thirty thousand dollar bond but that will not pay to repair the road. The county will have to do that, and taxpayers in the county will be footing the bill.

Last summer the fracking companies removed thirty thousand gallons of water from the lLittle Red River, which is really a creek, not a river. The farm depends on the river and a well for water for the stock and their personal use. They have no idea how the fracking operations will affect their access to potable water. They are concerned about their future livelihood and the health of their livestock.

There are many other fracking sites in the area so much more water has been removed from the Little Red River. They Are very concern about the quality of their ground water.

I think it is time to get moving on alternative energy sources and not destroy the subsurface structure of our lands. We are located on a vault line. We do not need to further break this substructure down. We also should acknowledge that climate change is already upon us and we only have a very narrow time to turn it around. We are blessed in the Yukon with all of the renewable, no polluting resources to generate the energy we need. Forget the fracturing, leave it in the ground. Put our energy and resources to develop the alternatives.
Sincerely submitted ,
Clara Sharp

●  Rhein, Werner (Apr 10, 2014)

Dear Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing

I think it should be clear by know that Yukoners don’t want an Oil and Gas development in Yukon.

There is almost every said that could be about the risks especially fracking and there are no benefits for Yukon by going in that direction.

In the last two days I came across some significant arguments why Yukon should stop an oil & gas development in Yukon and here are the links to this arguments.

I’m not sure Premier Pasloski had a chance in South Africa to talk with Bishop Desmond Tutu, but I think he should have because of this;

Please watch and read this two very important documents and I can see another decision than ban oil & gas development I Yukon for you.

This has nothing to do with techniques or regulations this is only a moral decision for the future of OUR Planet.

Thank you for your time,
Werner Rhein, a citizen of this Planet.

●  Gwynne-Timothy, Susan (Apr 4, 2014)

Dear Select Committee on Fracking
Please say no to fracking.

The reasons why you should say no have already been clearly stated many times by the people making comments on this page. Fracking as it is currently carried out causes such a huge scale of environmental devastation that it is crazy to contemplate doing it. Especially when critics of the financing of fracking (such as Deborah Rogers and David Hughes) also point out that it is not even economically viable, but just a bubble. As well, the findings of the IPCC report released this week on climate change indicate that continuing to invest in fossil fuels is going to create terrible outcomes for our planet. It is our moral responsibility to start investing in renewable options instead, for the sake of our living planet and our children.

I devoutly hope that all the members of the Select Committee are taking these points on board and will make the right choice for the Yukon and as global citizens in a time of jeopardy, although I worry that those members who "wish" that regulating fracking would work (when the impossibility of regulating it is becoming clearer every day), so they could feel good about themselves while maintaing their extractivist mentalities in tact, will ignore the evidence to the contrary.

So I will try to jostle those extractivist certainties, by quoting to you the words of Pulitzer prize winning American journalist Chris Hedges. Please realize you can and should choose to do differently. Please differentiate yourselves from the lies of many (not all) of the power elite. Please realize that there is still time to avoid this disaster scenario described by Chris Hedges:

"...To emotionally accept impending disaster, to attain the gut-level understanding that the power elite will not respond rationally to the devastation of the ecosystem, is as difficult to accept as our own mortality. The most daunting existential struggle of our time is to ingest this awful truth—intellectually and emotionally—and rise up to resist the forces that are destroying us.

The human species, led by white Europeans and Euro-Americans, has been on a 500-year-long planetwide rampage of conquering, plundering, looting, exploiting and polluting the earth—as well as killing the indigenous communities that stood in the way. But the game is up. The technical and scientific forces that created a life of unparalleled luxury—as well as unrivaled military and economic power for a small, global elite—are the forces that now doom us. The mania for ceaseless economic expansion and exploitation has become a curse, a death sentence. ..."

Dear Select Committee, PLEASE make the right choice, look at all the facts about regulations not actually working, and the facts about so many wells leaking in the long run (as many have pointed out), and do not listen to the Oil & Gas people when they sit their in their expensive suits saying "trust me" while present so little factual back up to their statements.

●  Wright, Sally (Apr 4, 2014)

I would like to take this opportunity to share the risks of Natural Gas exploitation and hydraulic fracturing with the select committee.

This method of extraction is water intensive. It poisons water and removes it from the cycle of life.

This method has created a false economic narrative in the world of energy. The present north American cheap natural gas market is stealing resources from renewable energy initiatives, externalizing the costs of pollution onto the population by polluting our common atmosphere, and perpetuating our fossil fuel addiction.

We as a species, are waking up, albeit slowly, to the fact that this action of spewing millions of years of carbon into the atmosphere in a mere 100 years of the internal combustion engine, has endangered future generations. We simply must stop this now.

The Yukon needs to be the line in the sand on extreme hydro carbons such as fracked natural gas. The IPCC released a report on March 31,2014 that can be found at this link

Please also review the transcript of the community session of the public hearing held by the YUB in its review of YEC's LNG part 3 hearing on March 31, 2014 at the link here :

The final arguments of that hearing are crucial for you to review at the link here:

Sincerely, Sally Wright, Kluane Lake

●  Staley, Peter (Apr 3, 2014)

Please consider and investigate , all other options before going ahead with choice 1 stand by diesel generated power . Seems to me that in just about all communitys there is stand by diesel generators that are older but because of being stand by low hours of use. These could be used intimes of need. If the system , is very close to max in use , maybe theres power reduction that need to be investigated ,I would voluenteer what I could to reduce my consumption . Maybe just asking the Public to reduce , for the savings in 40 million dollars might be a win win situation I can think of another saving possibility changing every street lamp to led reducing the consumption , even reducing every second one . Just came back from HHawui and there isnt a lot of street lamp there. " Come on be leaders not followers "!

●  Schou, Jannik (Mar 31, 2014)

Do not allow fracking in the Yukon

To frack or not to frack, that was the question facing the Select Committee Regarding the Risk and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing. In a press release February 12, the Yukon Government announced that it has signed a partnership agreement with the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission to cooperate on common interests such as responsible regulation of industry activity.

This release came while the Select Committee is still doing its work, and even before any of the mandated community hearings have been held. Once again we are seeing a government wielding its trademark: disregard for public opinion.

For years the Yukon government has tried to entice the oil and gas industry to the Territory’s untapped resources, but it may be our good fortune that we haven’t yet turned the underground at Eagle Plains into a swiss cheese. As Dr. Gilles Wendling, a hydrogeologist explained in the first presentation at the recent hearings at the Yukon Legislature, precious little is known about our groundwater resources in the Yukon, and their complex relationship with surface water are matters we need to know about, before we even consider making holes in the ground. Oil and gas wells have a notorious high failure-rate over their lifespan. Even if only 10% of the over 500,000 wells in Western Canada start leaking, it leaves us with 50,000 straws in the ground which potentially can create pathways between contaminated water at the bottom of the well and clean groundwater above. Dr. Wendling stressed the need to know in advance what a company’s final built out leases will l ook like, as you otherwise may end up with an industrial complex you’d never agreed to. Company’s don’t tend to disclose their long term plans - no need to alarm the public with the facts.

The oil and gas companies came in force when it was their turn to present, flanked by lobbyists and office staff for support. Wayne Hamal is the Chief Operating Officer from EFLO Energy Inc.- together with Apache Corp. they hold the Kotaneelee gasfield leases. Both Companies have headquarters in Houston, Texas where the State Legislature is a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil and gas industry. Wayne Hamal starts by talking about their corporate culture, their harmonious relationship with the environment and the promotion of transparent collaboration with Government, Regulators, First Nations and Yukoners. The company wants to frack and, following details about the impressive well construction and the length of the horizontal fracks, Wayne Hamal offers the “take away,” “that the risk of negative environmental impacts due to fracture stimulation is essentially zero”. In diametric contradiction to Mr. Hamal’s claim, about 5% of Alberta’s 300, 000 oil and gas wells leak according to industry reports to regulators. Besides, this is a far too narrow scope to make such an assertion: accidents, for example, happen all the time somewhere in the chain of events. Last June an Apache pipeline in northern Alberta ruptured, spilling 60,000 barrels of toxic waste (frack water) resulting in the destruction of 42 hectares of land and run off into creeks.

Wayne Hamal explains how EFLO Energy is here for the long haul because there is more than 50 years worth of gas in the underground. The investments will have a huge impact. We are talking significant capital, and “Top dollar Wayne” brings over a billion dollars to the table. There will be jobs, and the proximity of the natural gas will help attract more industrial activity to the territory and can fuel community needs. However, despite Mr. Hamal’s cute slogan “Yukon Gas for Yukon”, the gas will go where the highest price is paid.

During the question period New Democrat Jim Tredger from the Select Committee asked the Chief Operating Officer if he can explain what EFLO’s built out plans will look like in Kotaneelee? Mr. Hamal somewhat hesitantly responded that the conventional wells already in place will be revitalized and made a couple of brief comments about two or three new wells. This is where a red flag pops up - the “transparent collaboration with Yukoners” appears to have evaporated! Of course the companies have a pretty good idea of the infrastructure needed to extract the estimated trillions of cubic feet of gas. Nothing is disclosed so we can only guess what the impacts on the land might be, but if EFLO and Apache are concerned about getting their “social license”, it may be for very good reasons..

In one of the last presentations at the hearings, a somber mood settled over the Assembly as Chief Sharleen Gale and Director of Lands & Resources, Lana Lowe, from the Fort Nelson First Nation got underway in their presentation with the audience listening attentively. This was a different story and coming straight from the heart.

Signed in 1910, Treaty 8 gives the Fort Nelson First Nation the right to hunt, fish and trap in their traditional territory for “as long as the sun shines, the river flows and the grass grows” but since the shale gas boom took off in 2006 they have found their traditional lifestyle under siege. Today 80,000 km of linear disturbance - enough to girdle the earth twice - dissects the Horn River Basin in the form of roads, cutlines for seismic work, and pipelines, spreading forever like a cancer. One easily comes to the conclusion that the most common form of terrorism in North America is that carried on by bulldozers and chainsaws.

Before the recent gas glut and subsequent slow down in gas extraction, over one thousand big trucks - like an army convoy - would rumble through Fort Nelson every day during the winter servicing the gas industry. The companies leave a large footprint as they clear the land to make make way for camps, well pads, compressor stations, holding ponds for water, gravel pits for road construction etc. The fragmented landscape has put 3 caribou herds on the endangered list and the large influx of industry workers has levied more pressure on the game populations.

The First Nation is critical of the the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission which is supposed to regulate the industry but only pays lip service to the First Nation’s concerns, and has allowed industry to run amok with no cumulative impact assessments and no baseline studies. They are seeing water levels dropping in lakes and creeks, while before the B.C. Government there is a whole slew of long term water license applications begging for more. The First Nation is now digging in their heels and fighting to keep a meagre 9% of their traditional territory in a relative natural state. They want to have environmental protection measures in place and a limit to development before LNG exports to Asia sets off a new unprecedented gas rush on their traditional land. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell - eventually the host is killed.

But far from the muskegs of northeast B.C., in the governmental offices in Vancouver and Whitehorse, everything is just fine with the Oil and Gas Commission. Rich Coleman, the Minister of Natural Gas Development in B.C. commented on the new agreement with Yukon saying: “British Columbia prides itself on our safe and environmentally appropriate development practises, which are best established when we collaborate with other jurisdictions”. Does Rich Coleman have so much to be proud of? On June 1st, 2011 in the B.C. Legislature, he was asked if approval had been given to Talisman- and Canbriam Energy to remove 7.3 billion litres of water from the Williston Lake reservoir. Rich Coleman was applauded when he stood up and delivered a clear answer:” There will be an extensive process of consultations with the public and negotiations with First Nations before anything goes ahead.” But only two months later, Talisman Energy was granted a 23 year water licence to extract 10 million litres of water every day without any public consultations. When Rich Coleman was subsequently questioned in a TV interview, the Minister could only offer gobbledegook as he sat in the glaring video light uneasily scratching his neck.

In Whitehorse Ron Sumanik, the director of Yukon Government’s Oil and Gas branch says the agreement will allow the regulators to “share our collective wisdom… we think the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission is a responsible and world-class regulator”. Others think differently. When Lowe recently was asked in Whitehorse, if she on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the best) could rate her relationship with the Oil and Gas Commission, she didn’t waste any words when she replied: -5!

In a public meeting about fracking at Marsh Lake a couple of years ago Mr. Sumanik said: “We can’t let land use planning get in the way of economic development”, a comment which not only echoes the Yukon government’s peculiar desire to wreck our Territory, but also the federal governments mindless ambition to sell off Canada’s natural resources as fast as possible.

Questions were asked in the Legislative Assembly regarding the risk and benefits of hydraulic fracturing and questions were answered, but the long term cumulative social and environmental impacts of an insatiable industry destined to wreak irrevocable havoc on our lives and natural habitats can never be answered in a brief Q and A.

At this point in time the Select Committee can only make the “informed decision” that it is uninformed, and therefore must ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing for the benefit of the environment, public health and future generations. As the years go by they will be thankful for that decision.

●  Rhein, Werner (Mar 22, 2014)

I would like the committee to look at this aspect that will be happening with the development of Oil & Gas in Yukon to. The heavy truck traffic created by the Industry who will see this as an freebie pay by us the taxpayer.
Here is the newest study I could find on this issue;
Please copy and put into your address bar.
Werner Rhein, citizen of planet earth

●  Mennell, Lee (Mar 20, 2014)

To Select Committee members

I challenge you ( whoever has the heart ) to watch this video from "Lock the Gate" the anti-fracking organization in Australia. If you still believe that the opposition is a small radical fringe, and that all the evidence is likely over exaggerated, the the info from Gas companies is really the one to trust, I challenge you. This shows what's happening there, and shows graphically the effects, the massive footprint on the environment, the destruction of farms, and livelihoods, the radicalization of the entire population, old, young, hippie and redneck....the widespread opposition in all demographic populations. This insanity needs to be stopped. Let's stop it now for God's sake.
Lee Mennell

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Mar 20, 2014)

Dear Committee,
I will quote the Yukon Oil & gas website concerning the agreement signed lately with B.C.:

“The BC Oil and Gas Commission and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources share the goals of safety, excellence in operations, and responsible resource management,” Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources Scott Kent said. “This agreement establishes an important link with our southern neighbour and we look forward to accessing such extensive knowledge and experience regulating the oil and gas industry.”
end of the quote.

Please. read and consider the following.
Isn't that excellence in Operation!

Ban Fracking Now
Jacqueline Vigneux

●  Harker, Davina (Mar 16, 2014)

Lest We Forget - Economics for Millennim - Do NOT FRAK our future, our Territory

Famous for fresh air
Josh Kerr Monday October 3, 2011
Ian Stewart/Yukon News

Whitehorse has the world's cleanest air, according to a study published in September by the World Health Organization.

Whitehorse has the best air quality in the world, according to a recent study by the World Health Organization.

“It’s a very significant accomplishment,” said Mayor Bev Buckway. “I think a number of people will want to capitalize on that, not only just the city, but the community as a whole.”

Over the years, she’s seen “odd” reactions from people as they arrive in Whitehorse.

“When people come from a bigger city where there is a fair bit of smog, you can see them physically sniffing the air saying, ‘Wow.’”

The World Health Organization body surveyed 1,082 cities around the world collecting air-quality data from 2003 to 2010.

While Whitehorse garnered the No. 1 spot, Canada fared well over all.

Nine of the top 10 cities with the best air quality were Canadian.

Cities were ranked by the amount of concentration of fine particulate matter in a cubic metre of air.

With a particulate count of three, Whitehorse had the best air quality.

Ahwaz, Iran, was the worst in the world, with a count of 372.

With a low population, hydro power and no significant manufacturing industry, Buckway isn’t surprised Whitehorse did so well. But she said the city can do even better, even in the winter.

“Part of our sustainability plan is we’re always mindful of emissions,” she said. “The one thing we have a bit of a struggle with is encouraging people not to idle their vehicles.”

Transportation has a big impact on air quality, said Shannon Clohosey the city’s sustainability projects manager.
While the city’s sustainability programs aren’t designed to specifically address air quality, things like public transit, bike and pedestrian paths do have an impact, she said.

“We’re doing something right,” said Clohosey. “I hope that we continue to work to improve and keep getting better and better.”

●  Rhein, Werner (Mar 6, 2014)

Comments to the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing
I would like to present you with the newest information I have found about the effect our lifestyle had in the last 150 years on the very Planet we live on. The one thing we should not forget is that we have only this one for now and maybe for a long time to come before we can escape to another one.
So I urge you to consider in your deliberation about the risks and benefits of any oil and gas development in Yukon and as a matter of fact worldwide.

Please watch this two videos, yes I know it is time consuming but you are paid to do so and I did all that extensive research on Fracking in the last two years on my dime and on my time as an ordinary but environmental cautious citizen. So I expect from you as a paid decision maker to do your fair share and not just follow blindly orders as so many do this days.

After you have seen and heard what will be happening to our planet in the near future and especially close to us her in the Northern hemisphere. There can be only one decision you should make.

BAN FRACKING and any other fossil development.

Spend time and resources to develop alternative energy sources. We have the technology and the money can come from the same sources as for the destructive fossil fuel development.

Here is the proof that alternative energy works.

Werner Rhein, a citizen of this Planet.

●  Taggart, Jim (Mar 6, 2014)

It is very disappointing that communities have to submit a request for public meetings and have to ask to be allowed to fully participate in the debate. I understand the costs of consultations have an impact, but this is such an important and potentially divisive issue effecting all Yukoners that public meetings have a vital role to play. Seemingly restricting public consultation and input simply gives the impression that our voices are not important.

It's not clear how public requests are to be assessed. Is there a minimum number of requests required, does the municipality or FN government have to make a request before the committee will attend? Clarification on these matters would help allay some public concerns.

Residents would appreciate information on what format these public meetings will take, who will participate, what opportunities will there be for public comment and how these comments are to recorded and assessed. This should be provided well in advance. Is the committee confident of meeting its new reporting deadline?

I'd urge all Yukoners, irrespective of their position on hydraulic fracturing, to request the committee holds a public meeting in their communities and provided information on the format and nature of public representation in advance.

●  barrington, Geof (Mar 4, 2014)

i believe the movie FRAC NATION . and anyone with an opinion on fracing one way or the other should view this movie .
i work in the oilpatch in Alberta during the winter and i work with a lot of local people and if there were a lot of problems with fracking i would hear of some of them . since i dont hear of any problems from any of my associates i assume there is not a lot of problems . maybe a few but probably very few .
it has been my experience that the greenies are against just about everything all of the time good or bad , and because of that i think their opinions are skewed

●  Mowat, Douglas (Mar 4, 2014)

Important information on fracking and air quality in Texas: Big Oil and Bad Air: Report Exposes Link Between Fracking and Toxic Air Emissions in Texas ( Please post this comment from Nation of Change

●  O'Brien, Cheryl (Mar 4, 2014)

I believe hydraulic fracturing can be done in a safe and regulated manner. I would like to see the development of our resources in and around Watson Lake and Southeast Yukon. The Yukon Government has processes in place or will be in place to protect the environment and our people, while providing economic growth throughout the Yukon. I am in support of allowing oil & gas development in the Yukon.

●  Gilgan, Gordon (Mar 3, 2014)

The Yukon must ban hydraulic fracturing as a production method for oil and gas. The proponents of fracking have all played very loose with the truth and in many cases have simply lied to the committee.

It is clear from the evidence that fracking cannot be done safely and that the costs to the Yukon in terms of the risks to our fresh water supply alone outweigh all of the proposed benefits, many of which are suspect.

●  Hoefs, Manfred (Feb 27, 2014)

To the Yukon Select Committee on Hydraulic Fracturing
February 2014
Introduction: As a member of the Laberge Renewable Resources Council I want to add my name to those of numerous citizens and interests groups who have expressed their concerns about the possible use of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon for the extraction of oil and gas. I am not an expert in this field, and my comments are based on a review of literature. The coverage this topic has received in the media, and the large number of residents who have submitted comments to the Select Committee about it, should raise a flag and be an eye-opener to government that they are venturing onto thin ice with this proposal.
It is my understanding that hydraulic fracturing allows companies to extract oil and gas from geological formations that do not lend themselves to the use of conventional techniques, or would produce higher yields than the use of conventional techniques. Hydraulic fracturing is the fracturing of rock by a pressurized liquid. Typically water is mixed with sand and chemicals, and the mixture is injected at high pressure into a well-bore to create small fractures (typically less than 1 mm), along which fluids such as gas, petroleum, uranium-bearing solutions, and brine water may migrate to the well. Hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, and then small grains of proppant (sand or aluminium oxide) hold these fractures open once the rock achieves equilibrium. The technique is used in wells for shale gas, tight gas, tight oil, and coal seam gas. The procedure’s benefit consist of increasing the rate at which fluids, such as petroleum, water, or natural gas c an be recovered from subterranean natural reservoirs. Reservoirs are typically porous sandstones, lime-stones or dolomite rocks, but also include “unconventional reservoirs” such as shale rock or coal beds. Hydraulic fracturing enables the extraction of natural gas and oil from rock formation at depths down to 20 000 feet.

The fluid injected into the rock is typically a slurry of water, proppants (sand), and chemical additives. Additionally, gels, foams, and compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and air can be injected. Typically, of the fracturing fluid 90% is water and 9.5% is sand or some other proppant with the chemical additives accounting for about 0.5%.
Water is needed in large quantities. Hydraulic fracturing uses between 1.2 and 3.5 million U. S. gallons of water per well, with large projects using up to 5 million U. S. gallons. Additional water is needed if wells are re-fractured. An average well requires 3 to 8 million U. S. gallons of water over its lifetime.
Proppants are materials that will keep an induced hydraulic fracture open during or following a fracturing treatment. It is usually a sand or ceramic, but can also be a gel or foam
Three to twelve different chemical may be used in the fluid, with the more typically ones being: Acids, Sodium chloride, Polycrylamides, Ehtylene glycol, Borate salts, Sodium and Potassium carbonates, Glutaraldehyde, Guar gum, Citric acid and Isopropanol.

Application: Hydraulic fracturing is widely used for oil and gas extraction particularly in the United States. Some countries allow it under very stringent conditions, such as England; and some countries have prohibited its use such as France and Germany.

Concerns (a) environmental) raised about the use of this procedure are varied and include environmental as well as health problems, with contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, contamination of air, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, being among them. Air pollution results from exhaust fumes of vehicles and heavy machinery, gas escaping during exploration and production phases, and from flaring of gas, which besides the usual carbon dioxide may include methane, which is many times more toxic as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, and benzene. There have also been reports of increased earthquake activity associated with the degradation of bed rock. Wastewater management is another problem. Hydraulic fracturing can concentrate uranium, radium, radon and thorium in flow-back. Estimates of the amount of injected fluid returning to the surface are ranging fr om 15 to 20%. Some companies are beginning to recycle fracking water, which lowers the total amount of water used and reduces the need to dispose of wastewater after use. The technique is relatively expensive, however, since the water must be treated before each reuse.
As an agency responsible for voicing possible impacts on fish and wildlife, Laberge Renewable Resources Council has numerous concerns. Obviously surface and even groundwater pollution can have serious impacts on the aquatic ecosystems, affecting a large range of aquatic invertebrates, fish, aquatic vegetation as well as larger mammals that are part of these systems, including mink, otter, beaver, muskrat, and moose, last not least dozens of bird species use wetlands for breeding and during migration, particularly shore birds and waterfowl. Oilfields require new road access into formerly pristine wilderness areas, and the activities themselves with truck traffic, low – flying aircraft and heavy machinery, camp management will generate air and noise pollution, with the resulting displacement of wildlife from such effected areas. A number of exploited oil field in close proximity will have cumulative impacts with habitat fragmentation on a larger scale.
Concerns (b) Human Health effects: Instances of impacts have been documented for a number of long and short term health effects of air and water contamination and radiation exposure by gas production. Health consequences of concerns include infertility, birth defects and cancer. Exposure to the fluids and flow-back can effect the skin, eyes, blood, immune system, kidney system, and cardiovascular system of the workers and can be toxic.

Recommendations: Should Hydraulic Fracturing be allowed in the Yukon, it is recommended that a number of steps be taken to reduce its potentially negative impacts:
Considering the huge amount of water needed for this process, the possibility of water pollution brought about by it, the fact that Yukon is not blessed with many wetland, except in its north, that the annual precipitation is low and that fresh water is the essential ingredient of life as we know it, and that it should be treated as such and not as a commercial; commodity - a person may survive without food for a month, but deprived of water he will not survive four days -, the government should develop a Water Management Strategy and a Wetland Conservation Strategy.
A land-use plan should be developed for the region where hydraulic fracturing is under consideration. The plan should identify aquifers so that they along with significant surface water bodies can be zoned to prevent drilling to take place in their vicinity.
Baseline studies needed should be completed before drilling starts, and should be done by an objective agency, such as a university.
Before drilling commences the company should provide Government with a list of chemicals to be used, and toxic ones should not be allowed.
The average production of a hydraulic-fractured well is five years and some are much shorter. However, problems with abandoned wells may come into being for decades after. For instance, after about forty years, the well seals deteriorate and liquid can seep out into the aquifer. Mitigation measures may become necessary and they be may be expensive. To protect the taxpayer from having to pay for these , as is the case in Faro, a ”Security Bond” should be established into which a company will have to make deposits, while it is making money off the well. This money would then become available to Government in case of mitigative measures are needed for abandoned wells.
Manfred Hoefs
Member, Laberge Renewable Resources Council

●  Reid, Donald (Feb 20, 2014)

In my opinion there are two major reasons why hydraulic fracturing (fracking) should not be permitted in Yukon as a means of extracting oil or natural gas from underground deposits: (i) risks associated with this technique cannot be regulated or mitigated; (ii) the use of this technique would be unethical.

The question of regulation is crucial. In our efforts to take advantage of natural resources and manage their use, we employ science to understand and mitigate any risks to the safety of humans and of the environment. Risk is the probability of a detrimental effect resulting from our actions multiplied by the cost of that effect. Detrimental effects as a result of fracking have been well documented, despite claims by industry that the technique does not result in harm. I will not document those negative effects here, as they have been presented to the Committee.

The key point is that we lack the technical means of quantifying the probability that detrimental effects will occur in any one fracking situation (e.g., individual well) or time. Fracking involves the injection of huge amounts of water combined with poisonous chemicals into a sub-terranean space. If that process is to be safe (not result in polluted ground water or unwanted escape of hydrocarbons) we have to know the dimensions of the space through which the injected water will travel, the structural complexities of bedrock that surrounds the space and that is relied on to contain the injected water, the proximity of the space to aquifers and ground water which might become polluted by the injected water, the potential routes for escape of the pressurized oil and gas through all bedrock layers. The simple fact is that we have no such three-dimensional knowledge of the underground environment and its hydrology, and so no way to put any quantitative estimate on the risk of a n egative effect let alone any estimate of confidence in that quantified risk. Worse still, we have no way to act to mitigate negative effects when they occur, because we lack any monitoring or tracking of the underground processes, including water flows, which might tell us where the problem is occurring and why.

The potential costs of an adverse result from fracking are very large including: contamination of ground water on a large scale; poisoning of animals, plants and people through surface or near-surface escape of polluted water; and escape of toxic and dangerous gases and other hydrocarbons above ground. Industry has consistently refused to acknowledge these costs in public, despite inducing numerous people into monetary settlements of claims for costs at the pain of confidentiality.

When a risk cannot be assessed or mitigated because society and government are ignorant as to the probability of detrimental effects and where they may occur, then the risk cannot be regulated. It is simply illogical to state that regulations can be put in place to make the fracking process safe when we lack enough knowledge of the geological systems in question to know where in space and time problems might arise. Meanwhile the potential costs are so severe, that to act in ignorance is very irresponsible.

My second reason for thinking that fracking should not be permitted is that it would be unethical.
Fracking is being contemplated as a means of getting access to hydrocarbons that would not otherwise be extracted and used. The extraction of new sources of hydrocarbons to contribute to the fossil fuel burning economy has widespread ethical dimensions. The consequences of climate change, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is now a question of human rights. Whole island nations are projected to disappear as sea levels rise. Livelihoods of numerous cultures (including the Inuvialuit) are in jeopardy as ecosystems change. The food supplies for literally billions of people are at huge risk because of ocean acidification. The climate chaos that is beginning to occur will significantly test the ability of our society and civilization to survive.

Many scientists who study carbon emissions and temperature rise have concluded that no new sources of hydrocarbons can be brought on stream if we are to avoid totally disruptive climate change. If we extract Yukon’s hydrocarbons we are implicitly saying that we do not care about the rights of existing cultures to persist nor the rights of our children and grandchildren to have a sustainable future. We are denying human rights to various human beings in favour of satisfying our short-term greed and luxury. Every tonne of carbon we leave buried, and refuse to burn, contributes to a higher probability that our children and grand-children will survive the expanding crisis.

Industry advocates will argue that if we don’t extract the oil and gas in Yukon, others will in other places. This is a morally bankrupt argument. Consider a drought-stricken community rationing its water supply. If one person decides to take more than his share, under the supposition that others will also act greedily, then cheating ensues, fairness disappears and everyone suffers in the chaotic end. This is what proponents of expanded hydrocarbon development propose, - a reckless search for short-term gain that ignores the larger predicament that humanity faces by ignoring the rights of fellow human beings today and our offspring tomorrow. Somewhere a community has to take the higher moral ground by keeping hydrocarbons in the ground. Other communities in North America and Europe have made the valid moral judgement. Yukon needs to be such a community.

Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion.

●  Lewis, Mary Ann (Feb 20, 2014)

Fracking should be banned NOW in Yukon. There should be no agreement signed with any other government nor any company with the intent to allow hydraulic fracturing within Yukon, now or in the foreseeable future.

In February 2012, EMR attended a meeting at Tagish to respond to questions concerning the 12 posting requests for Oil and Gas rights in Southern Yukon. Over fifty people at that meeting voiced loudly their disapproval of the granting of these dispositions which stretched from Carcross to Carmacks along the Yukon River. Since that time many of us Yukoners have continued to educate ourselves about the Oil and Gas industry and the effects of hydraulic fracturing. Most recently there were the eight presentations in the legislature, held January 31st and February1st. I attended these presentations to the YTG Fracking Committee.

At best companies and some individuals, make a lot of money from oil and gas extraction. At worst, people's water is contaminated, people suffer serious illnesses, animals, fish and wildlife populations are damaged and their habitat destroyed. Land is permanently, negatively affected and the effects upon water both above and below ground are often irreversible. If a well doesn't leak initially, it is only a matter of time until it does, years, decades. Who pays, who inherits the problem? Our children and future generations.

Millions upon millions of litres of fresh water are removed from the hydrology forever.

Among the eight presentations in the legislature, most did agree that there were risks and that 'managing the risks' was the goal, where social license had been granted by people wanting to invite Gas extraction into their community. Yukon's shale gas can only be accessed by hydraulic fracturing - 'Fracking'.

Mr. H. Wayne Hamal is Chief Operation Officer of EFLO Energy Inc. The company owns a majority share of the Kotaneelee Gas Field in Southeast Yukon. He was asked whether it would be possible to have a limited number of gas wells to simply provide gas for the Yukon market. In reply Mr. Hamal stated that “EFLO is driven by economics” and he described that they would be looking to export, likely from the coast of B.C. He also stated that he believed, “the risk of negative environmental impact due to fracture stimulation at Kotaneelee is essentially zero”.

We have heard many other experts give reasons for water movement causing contamination during, or after Fracking. The companies responsible have at times left, or no longer exist. Regulations that will effectively prevent leakage and spills do not exist. It is not possible to effectively regulate this industry. A company's main goal is profit, not environmental protection. Our fresh water is far more valuable a resource to Yukoners than oil or gas.

An even greater consideration affecting our children's future is Climate Change, now considered the greatest weapon of mass destruction. When 97% of the World's Scientists agree that Fossil Fuel use is the largest contributor to climate change, we need our government to move seriously to renewable energy, and not continue supporting fossil fuel use by contributing further to oil and gas extraction.

Finally, if there is any doubt that oil and gas extraction benefits local communities, then the presentation by the Fort Nelson First Nation's Chief and Land's officer should be convincing evidence. Chief Sharleen Gale and Lana Lowe, Director, Dept. Of Lands & Resources, described the effects caused by the invasion of the oil and gas companies over the past five years as being “an environmental nightmare”. Wildlife has been seriously affected. Three of their most viable Caribou herds are now endangered. Moose have become unhealthy, some have developed cysts, making them unfit to eat. Other animal habitat and wild food sources have been destroyed. Water tables have changed, in some areas fish have disappeared. Plants and forests have been destroyed. The timber is burned. Recently a hibernating bear, in its den, was run over with a mulching machine. Over 80,000 kms of lineal disturbance, including 3 pipelines, five gas plants, frack sand mining a reas creating air pollution with Silica dust, have changed their land forever.

The First Nation's goal at present is to try to keep 9% of their land, lying along a river corridor, off limits to development. They realize that they will most likely lose the other 91% of their lands to development by the Oil and Gas industry. Bravely, yet at times choking back tears, Chief Gale and Ms. Lowe described how they hope to “get through this” as “it's being forced upon us”. They state that they have continuing destruction of their lands. They are experiencing huge increases in the number of well pads, the amount of water withdrawal along with three major pipelines and five gas plants. “Each company wants their own gas plant”. Lakes have been drained by one third of their volume, some streams have disappeared. There is “lots of sickness” among band members.
They state that still to come is a 600% increase in drilling, with 50,000 more gas wells to be drilled on their lands. They are trying to protect what they can so they can “make it through this”. Many of us sitting in the gallery also had tears in our eyes by the end of this presentation to the Fracking Committee, February1st.

What are we thinking? What are you, our Government, thinking? You were not elected on an Oil and Gas development platform. If the question still needs to be asked, the answer is a resounding 'NO!' we do not support Fracking. BAN Fracking NOW, in Yukon!
Mary Ann Lewis

●  Wright, Sally (Feb 20, 2014)

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 I heard an interview with a man that lives a half a mile away from this disaster in Greene County Pennsylvania on CBC’s As It Happens. The link to the news story and footage is as follows:

He said the fire was out but the fracked well continues to spew methane into the atmosphere, “sounds like a jet engine”. Imagine the climate change potential of this one uncontrolled natural gas well... Methane is 100 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Chevron gave the residents pizza for the “inconvenience”. Do we want this in our territory? Do we want this in anyone else’s territory?

It is time we stopped this insanity.

●  Rudniski, Dino (Feb 20, 2014)

To Whom It May Concern:
Hi, my name is Dino Rudniski, and I am a born and raised Yukoner. My grandfather Stephan Rudniski was a gold miner up in Dawson City. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, because I love panning for gold too.

The caption 'Risks and Benefits' is completely misleading; you know there are going to be risks involved, and you know that the only people who will benefit will be those in industry. I am not anti-development, I am just anti-asinine acts.

Please consider the future, instead of immediate gains, because short term solutions derive long term problems.

I would like to share a blurb of one of many road trips along the Alaska Highway, where the infamous Fort Nelson, and Fort St. John would be on radar to not stay for too long. One reason was because of the smell, but there was also another reason.

I got water at a restaurant in Fort St. John; there was so much chlorine in the water, that it tasted like I drank from a swimming pool. Almost undrinkable, I mixed it with a powdered drink mix.

Again: Please consider the future, instead of immediate gains, because short term solutions derive long term problems.

P.S. Don't do any hydraulic fracturing in The Yukon.
Dino Rudniski

●  Harker, Davina (Feb 19, 2014)

I made a submission on February 13, 2014 to this site.

To add clarity – no amount of regulation will make this process acceptable. I may have been misunderstood when I mentioned regulations are moot if not adopted with integrity.

To be clear - I request this government and any future government of Yukon never entertain and/or adopt extraction of our fossil fuels by means of fracking. The whole process from start to finish is sad and unattainable for human and environmental safety.

Do not FRACK Yukon – ever!

●  McCann, Catherine (Feb 19, 2014)

I do not support the idea of hydraulic fracturing in Yukon Territory. Allowing it will cause serious irreversible damage to the environment. The fracturing process uses massive amount of fresh water which will be drained from our lakes and streams. This will be mixed with a wide assortment of toxic chemicals and forced underground - fracturing the rock. None of the water used can be retrieved or treated and recycled to the environment. This toxic sludge mostly remains under ground and because of all the fractures in the rock, no one can control where it leaches to for years afterward. The mess has ( in other jurisdictions) polluted the water table and made animals and people sick. Hydraulic fracturing also causes man made earthquakes. Not to mention the other assaults on wilderness areas and wildlife by explorative drilling, road building, blocks of forest clear cut for camps and drill sites, noise, dust and increased human activity.

We don't need this. It will end up doing much more harm than good. If you really respect the land, you will ban hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. Understand the great gift and the true value of the Yukon, as it is now - with many wild places still intact.

Also why is the Yukon Government making a partnership deal with the British Columbia Government regarding " regulating " this industry? Why are decisions being made ahead of the "supposed" consultation process with the public?

The " open for business - anything goes ! " motto of the BC government has meant" open season" on their environment in the north east, and its a disgusting mess. The area has been desecrated with a multitude of clear cuts, site platforms, assess roads, industrial equipment, and storage tanks covering a huge area. Its an example of what- not- to- do, where the natural environment has been ruined and wildlife forced out. So why is YTG wanting to take advise from these people?

You cannot make hydraulic fracturing safe for people, the environment or for wildlife.
Ban hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. Its the last thing we need here. Focus on renewable energy sources instead, for our sakes and for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

●  Avery, Anna (Feb 18, 2014)

From all the reading I have done so far, the risks seem to far outweigh the short lived benefits. Compare a few years worth of fracturing employment, and the resulting product to the thousands of years of ruined water supplies, gas emissions detrimental to human health, dead and poisoned soil, and permanent change to the composition of the environment.

The Yukon is known throughout the world as a pristine example of land that is left to care for. We are the stewards of that land, and we need to leave it in the best way possible for future generations. The world will come to view it, and the tourism spin offs far outride the benefits of fracturing. As we see the worst drought in two hundred years in California right now, we know that we cannot afford to squander massive amounts of water to start fracturing and risk damaging the water supply. If we placed the same amount of monies into R&D for alternate power sources, i.e. wind, solar, hydro that we gave to woo companies into our territory to do extraction, we could be catching up with European models of energy.

Perhaps we could look to the example of Newfoundland that has issued a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. Other places in the world are banning this dangerous practice, and areas of New York and Pennsylvania are realizing their folly too late, as whole towns are abandoned with no safe drinking water.

As a person who has lived and contributed to the culture of the Territory for over twenty-five years, I remind myself of why I live here, and know that I feel very strongly about not allowing hydraulic fracturing into the Yukon. We cannot afford do do this.

●  Cushing, Al (Feb 18, 2014)

The Federal Government spent $40 million of our tax dollars on an advertising campaign to support oil and gas development; in effect a gift to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the companies they represent
"Oil and gas ad campaign cost feds $40M at home and abroad -Natural Resources advertising budget includes $24 million for audiences outside Canada -The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 27, 2013 5:40 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 28, 2013 8:43 AM ET" The industry in the United States spends upwards of $145,000,000 lobbying their federal government. This makes it very difficult for the average citizen to be heard, so I thank you listening. Before coming to Yukon I lived in Alberta. One of the reasons I left that province was a deep sense of betrayal and disgust with the way Alberta's government had sold out to the fossil fuel industry and were squandering the provinces future. I hope Yukon will take the time to peer through the professionally designed rosy haze of the petroleum industry , unravel the half truths and lies, and try to get to the facts or at very least listen to those who concerned with an open mind.

This is a solid, if biased, report on the fracking industry -

One of the stories we are told is that fracking won't have a great impact on our water and yet industry sees future profits in selling water and waste water disposal to the industry

Yukon has many other sources of energy that could be developed that would be less destructive - the technology exists to make renewable energy work in the north and if we spent the money we now waste supporting a fossil industry we could become world leaders in renewable technologies creating jobs and wealth for Yukon - jobs and wealth that won't disappear when the wells run dry.

I urge the committee to reject hydraulic fracturing in Yukon. I believe the costs and the risks far exceed any possible benefits to anyone other than the oil and gas companies.

●  Leon, Linda (Feb 18, 2014)

Why the hurry to frack the Yukon? I would be comfortable with companies coming into the Yukon to frack for oil and gas if there are stringent ways of monitoring fugitive methane, if it could actually be proven to be safe over the long term, (ie. 100 years without an incident), if the companies are willing to pay for the costs to infrastructure and if there is full disclosure of chemicals used in fracking. I would also like to see a chemical isotope signature applied to each case of fracking so that any contamination of ground water could be traced to individual companies and a legal responsibility on the stakeholders, board members and upper management of these companies that would see them or their beneficiaries financially held financially accountable for any accidents or leakages for up to 100 years. I would also like to see all of the Members of Legislature who voted to allow fracking in the Yukon (and their beneficiaries), held financi ally responsible for the same length of time as the 'greed is good' crowd who profit from this activity for any harm to the environment. I would also like to see a lobbyist registry in the Yukon and recent legislation to curtail access to information rescinded before I would agree that fracking in the Yukon is acceptable.

Why the hurry to frack? Companies want to get in, frack, make their loot and get out before the consequences become apparent. They are even now seeking out small companies they can sell their holdings to who will conveniently go bankrupt and disappear themselves as the you know what hits the fan.

Do not allow fracking in the Yukon.

●  Barrett, Christina (Feb 18, 2014)

I VOTE AGAINST FRACKING IN THE YUKON, IT SHOULD BE BANNED. I have seen the path it leaves and the devastation that the wildlife has to succumb to in it's wake. The people that get sick and die from it. The fresh waters and wells all polluted with a poison that will give any living thing a slow agonizing death. Our Land of the Midnight Sun will be tarnished forever.

●  Clarke, Stephen (Feb 18, 2014)

NO to fracking: that's no, a moratarium, call it what you will, NO Fracking !!!

●  Carruthers, Lee (Feb 18, 2014)

It is now time to turn our attention toward clean energy sources, rather than scraping the scum off the bottom of the petroleum barrel - which is exactly what fracking and LNG represent. Huge energy inputs and huge damage to the landscape and water in order to produce short spurts of energy. This is the end game for fossil fuels.

We can easily choose to put our money and time into developing clean energy sources. Sources that will help us save what is left of our wilderness and our climate so that our children and grandchildren can have a shot at a decent life. Clean energy technology is here and ready to be put into action. Many countries, those with leaders NOT in the pockets of the petro corporations, are doing just that. We owe it to future generations to take some bold steps now.

Ban fracking now, and stop the LNG madness that is carrying us deeper into the abyss.

●  Seguin, Jason (Feb 18, 2014)

I am a Yukon resident and I oppose "fracking" everywhere in the territory. While other resource development has a fairly predictable impact on natural resources, fracking has already proven to be far more destructive than initially imagined where it has already been allowed down South. Also part of this agenda seems to be a means of getting the extracted resource to market - IE: a pipeline. I am opposed to this as well, as I feel that it is too early to be risking water quality above ground as well as in the aquifers below.

●  Sloan, David (Feb 18, 2014)

I feel the government has not considered sufficiently the possible negative impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the water table and water quality.Moreover,the current approach of the government shows an almost cavalier disregard for the fundamental principle of First Nation consultation.It is apparent that in pursuing this pell mell headlong rush towards a technology that has had numerous examples of failure throughout North America,that this present government is ignoring public concerns and is intent on the industrialization of the territory.This is a government that is so craven,they dissembled and evaded direct answers on the Peel during the election.Now they say,"trust us." on hydraulic fracturing.Not likely.
This is an issue that will have profound effects on this territory and it's quality of life for generations and a more measured and considered public discussion is essential..

●  Sloan, Mary (Feb 18, 2014)

Once fracking companies are in, there's no turning back. PLEASE don't let them get a foot in the door. Even considering the possibility fracking can be done safely ( and I don't believe in 100% accident free fracking), the amount of water used and the devastation to the land is unacceptable. We live in the Yukon because we care for the land. Please don't let outside companies come in and destroy it!

Spend money on exploring alternate sources of energy. Oil and gas are sources of the past.

●  Pedlar, Andria (Feb 18, 2014)

Please don't frack Yukon.learn from other areas ...water is our most valuable resource...please keep it fresh...hold out,the world needs fresh air and water more than fossil fuels and uranium..thank you for considering our seven generations

●  Hegsted, Will (Feb 17, 2014)

I am opposed to oil & gas development by means of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon. I do not feel that it has proven itself to be a safe practice. In particular I'm concerned with the quantities of water required and the risk of contaminating groundwater. I feel that the Yukon would be wise to preserve our oil & gas reserves until safer methods have been developed, at which time they will surely be worth more than they are today.

●  Fidler, Brian (Feb 17, 2014)

Our groundwater is so important. What is more important and basic to our lives than water. Let's not let the short term benefits of big money overshadow the long term importance of our quality of life, the environment, and the world we are leaving our children.

●  Bradshaw, Gord (Feb 17, 2014)

The benefits of hydraulic fracturing are short-term: relatively cheap energy.

Not all of the disadvantages of hydraulic fracturing are known. We have a history of being blindsided by the unforeseen outcomes of our technological advances: DDT, hydrofluorocarbons, PDBs, Tetraethyllead, heroin, the Aswan Dam, the internal combustion engine - see also the list of industrial disasters on this page:

Closer to home, look at the Faro mine site.

Given that hydraulic fracturing has given us outcomes such as combustible water, and that there is a fierce debate about extent of the environmental and human damage done by modern hydraulic fracturing techniques, there is no doubt in my mind that we should be observing the results of the process in the areas where it is permitted before we accept it ourselves.

To elaborate on the risks I refer again to Wikipedia: "...the potential contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the potential migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, the potential mishandling of waste, and the health effects of these, such as cancer."

All of these outcomes are documented time and again in the history of resource extraction industries. The notion that we will avoid them during hydraulic fracturing is naive, and not the kind of thinking I expect from my elected officials.

Thanks You Gord Bradshaw

●  Connors, Andrew (Feb 17, 2014)

There are no benefits worth the risks to air and water in this industrial process. Energy conservation and renewable energy should be our strategy to meet energy demands. If we fail to develop such a strategy then we should pay higher prices for energy before mortgaging our children's future access to a healthy ecosystem. I oppose the development of this industrial process in the Yukon.

●  Kazda, Peter (Feb 17, 2014)

Fracking is a very bad idea and a high risk of polluting the water. On the other hand we know about different sources of power such as wind, solar or hydro. Those are gentle to nature. I would really like to see promotion of these renewable resources before dangerous fracking.

●  Klauserova, Lenka (Feb 17, 2014)

Do not allow fracking in Yukon! It is too risky, it can not be regulated! This industry may bring some jobs and money. But we would pay a big price in the long term. If we destroy our environment, especially our water sources, we will be faced with more problems than we will be able to handle. It will cost us even more; negatively impact our economy, health and quality of life. It will very negatively impact our children. 175 people in Faro signed a petition against fracking in May 2013. This petition was given to Stacey Hassard. The Selected Committee should be visiting all Yukon communities before making the decision about fracking in Yukon.

●  Grabowski, Tony (Feb 17, 2014)

I am in favor of natural gas development and extraction in the Yukon providing NO Fracking is used. If this can not be done without Fracking then I recommend we wait for development of more environmentally friendly methods and technology to extract natural gas. Meantime, Natural Gas reserves are not going anywhere. Companies wanting to develop natural gas in the Yukon should be working towards finding extraction methods that are acceptable to the Yukon public. Obviously, Fracking is not publicly acceptable and never will be.

I caution the Yukon Government to not fall for the slick Natural Gas Development company representatives promises that Fracking is harmless as their promises are self serving. Pumping vast volumes of water, chemicals and sand into the ground will have a negative effect on the environment. This is only common sense.

There are situations where money should not be first and foremost. In my view this is one of those situations. Mankind has done some awful things to the earth that we depend on for so many aspects of life. I urge the Government of Yukon to ban Fracking in the Yukon, thereby not degrading the part of the earth we call Yukon. We must do this for current citizens, our children and our grand children.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I hope that you take my comments seriously.

●  Pumphrey, Jessica (Feb 17, 2014)

I believe is has been well documented that Fracking the land causes more detrimental long term effects on the water table, land stability etc than the short term benefits. I STRONGLY disagree with allowing fracking in the Yukon. There are people in Alberta than can light the tap water in their homes on FIRE due to the high amount of chemicals in their water. There are also cases in the USA of large sinkholes forming under towns due to the instability of the land after being fracked. This is NOT a sustainable solution and would have terrible consequences for the people who call the Yukon home. I urge the Government of the Yukon to take fracking OFF the table for the long term health of the land and the people and animals that live here.

●  Barrett, Dave (Feb 17, 2014)

What I don't understand is how as an individual,I have to be so careful out in the environment.Careful with every little thing so as not to harm any fish or land animals or ecosystem.Don't run a 4 wheeler through a stream you may cause harm to the spawning grounds.Don't run a suction dredge in our creeks,another harmful thing to do for our fish.I remember when we were pouring concrete on a bridge on the Alaska highway,they had a person watching to make sure that no concrete would fall into the river below or there would be a stiff penalty and fine.Yet for some reason the fracking in our back yard with all it's danger and poisoning to the environment is totally acceptable.Once the damage is done there is no turning back.In the year 2104 water is a very valuable thing and will become even more valuable in the upcoming years.Just look around into other countries and see their struggle.United States is already interested in our water supply because of their own mismanagement.Let that be an example as to what the results will be if we follow in their footsteps.Are we really that desperate to extract the gas from the ground?Who's running this country and why let yourself be walked on by the industrialists?Grow some you know whats and stand up for your Territory.It is your decisions that will effect the Yukon's future.Yours Truly Dave Barrett.

●  Rehn, Lance (Feb 17, 2014)

This is one of the only provinces/territories not being destroyed for profit. Let's keep the Yukon beautiful and historic.

●  Barnes, Lesli (Feb 17, 2014)

Please add my name to BAN FRACKING IN THE YUKON TERRITORY. There are far too many unknowns and many, many knowns..ALL BAD!
Why would ANYONE ever want to allow this kind of damage to our beautiful land? STOP even thinking about this..STOP NOW!
Thank you.. L. Barnes Tagish, Y.T.

●  van Lieshout, Diyet (Feb 17, 2014)

I do not believe Yukon Government support of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon shows responsible leadership or governance. There are too many unknowns and environmental risks. While the current government may be feeling corporate pressures both internally and externally, this is a very short term solution with too many negative long term consequences. The Yukon may seem like a vast untapped and unspoiled land when looking from within, but on a global scale it is a small parcel of land that supports at risk ecosystems, clean drinking water and food sources - just to mention a few.

●  Ram, Reg (Feb 17, 2014)

Ban fracking now

●  Gallinger, Jean (Feb 17, 2014)

Ban fracking now

●  Renaud, Nellie (Feb 17, 2014)

Bannir la fracturation maintenant car cela ne peut pas être règlementé.
Please ear the voice of water. I'm sure we have other way to survive.. Please Ear the voices of the nature..
Dont let the gouvernement franking in the Yukon, Its our futur..

●  Steel, Caili (Feb 17, 2014)

This is unacceptable! Does this government have no respect for the natural landscapes of one of the last great wildernesses on earth and the PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE??!! By permitting fracking in Yukon the government is endangering all residents...THAT INCLUDES YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES!

Not only does fracking use up to 600 chemicals in the creation of fracking fluid, including known carcinogens such as lead, uranium, and mercury, the process of fracking also wastes millions and millions of gallons of fresh water and contributes significant carbon emissions into the atmosphere due to the hundreds of tanker trucks required to haul water to each gas well.

The chemicals used in this process have a HIGH likelihood of leaching out of the system and into nearby groundwater. According to research, methane concentrations are 17X higher in drinking water wells near fracturing sites than in normal wells. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water. Only 30-50% of the fracking fluid is recovered. The rest is left in the ground and is not biodegradable. Additionally, the waste fluid is left in open air pits to evaporate and releases harmful VOCs into the atmosphere causing contaminated air, acid rain, and ground level ozone. THESE ARE SERIOUS THREATS! DON'T IGNORE THEM! IT'S NOT WORTH IT!

●  Johnson, Britteny (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm 100% against fracturing in the Yukon. I am born & raised yukoner & my 4 children well be too. I firmly believe we need to preserve the land and protect it. The future generations are the ones who well suffer greatly because of the greed of others.... Don't u remember growing up and drinking from creek waters and not having to worry about it being poison. Our children and great grandchildren and so on and so forth deserve to grow and have the same carefree existence !!! Please ban frackin from the beautiful Yukon push and promote tourism but the main reason they come here is for the clean smog free air the undeveloped land, the true north <3
Let's keep it this way ........

●  van Delft, Fred (Feb 17, 2014)

I would like to see fracking banned in the Yukon without delay. We live here because it is one of the last corners of the country where our backyard is unpopulated, unpolluted and pristine, and our water is clean. People here still drink water from the lake.
With a population of only 40,000, is it really necessary that we 'grow' our economy larger and larger at the expense of our natural surroundings? How much economy do we need before Yukoners have enough? At some point I would argue that Yukoners would no longer be the ones gaining any benefit from economic expansion. And that point will have come at great and permanent cost by allowing activities such as fracking.

●  Labbé, Mireille (Feb 17, 2014)

I demand a BAN ON FRACKING NOW. As a Yukon citizen, I request the Yukon Government to turn to renewable energies like WIND POWER or SOLAR ENERGY, NOT FRACKING.

●  Parlee, Thomas (Feb 17, 2014)

I am completely opposed to the government's consideration of allowing fracturing as a technique for accessing gas. The Yukon must reject fracking and keep companies who use such practices out of the territory. The Yukon government should be taking a strong stand against fracking, not signing agreements with British Columbia to share info on how to regulate the industry. There is no safe way to regulate fracking. Instead we should committ our government to developing alternate renewable energies. other provinces have said NO to fracking and the Yukon should follow their lead. Please listen to the people, not the "experts" who work for corporations and have a vested interest in exploiting the resources, which will destroy the water on which all of life depends.

●  Verhalle, Dan (Feb 16, 2014)

I want fracking to be banned in the Yukon. The science to support fracking does not exist. There are too many unknowns and I am concerned with the effects it will have on human health and the environment. I am extremely worried with the effect that this kind of development will have on our communities and our quality of live. Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland & Labrador have all said no to fracking. Why does the Yukon Government continue to push forward on this, what is the rush? How can the Government of Yukon disregard scientific evidence and instead trust the oil and gas industry with the future of the Yukon. An industry that will not even disclose to the public what type of chemicals make up the fracking slurry that is pumped into the sedimentary fractures . This online consultation similar to the Peel Consultation is a process that is an insult to me as Yukoner. I doubt that any of these comments will be considered, many will be dismissed since the territorial government is not obligated to do anything with them. Taking its direction from the federal conservatives the government of the Yukon is pursuing a destructive and ignorant approach when it comes to the environment of the Yukon. Fracking will not benefit Yukoners; natural gas will never provide a cheap alternative energy and it will never heat homes in the Yukon. What will happen is that the profits will leave the Yukon along will our resources. We will be left with the mess, the cost of the cleanup and a destroyed environment. Do the right thing and ban fracking.

●  Almstrom, Sabine (Feb 16, 2014)

Fracking in the Yukon is unacceptable, and I demand a ban on fracking in the Yukon. We cannot afford to submit our supreme wilderness and pristine water resources to a technology which leaves destruction and poisoning of the environment in its wake.
Please visit most reliable soccer prediction site to realize that the movement against fracking in the Yukon is part of a global awakening that puts protection of the environment before its ruthless exploitation and destruction by big industry.
We must not let this happen in the Yukon. There is NO reason why fracking should be introduced now when the technology is highly unsafe for people, wildlife and whole ecosystems.
Government of Yukon, please listen to the multitute of voices of reason, the voices of scientific experts and of industry insiders that clearly state and warn about all the safety concerns surrounding fracking.
We will not stand for wanton and irreparable destruction of our children's and grandchildren's natural heritage and the home of Yukon's magnificent wildlife.

●  McCarthy, Colleen (Feb 16, 2014)

Regulations are useless - monitoring can only tell us when the damage has been done, damage which is irreversible. Don't believe the oil industry's lies. BAN FRACKING NOW!!!

●  McCorkell, Aileen (Feb 16, 2014)

I listened to most of the public presentations to the Committee. I was astounded by what we do not know about hydraulic fracturing and its effect on the water system. I found some of the industry comments extremely disingenuous; for example, the claim that "we are only using surface water." Do they not understand how a water system operates? Water is a much more precious resource than oil, gas, or minerals. There is only so much water on our planet. The presence of water is what makes life possible. The Yukon is responsible for a large percentage of the earth's water. It is not ours to pollute, it is ours to protect. We should be careful stewards of this irreplaceable resource. Given the present knowledge of the effects of hydraulic fracturing, it would be folly to approve hydraulic fracturing given the amount of fresh water that a) would be used and b) would be permanently contaminated.

I was amazed to hear that little is known of the cumulative effects of hydraulic fracturing. We may know something about one well but we also know that it is never one well. What about the effects on our infrastructure? It seemed from listening to the regulators that they were playing catch up with regulations as they found out more about the reality of hydraulic fracturing. And then there is the issue of baseline data and monitoring stations. So often industry says there is no proof that harm has been done. That is because there is no baseline data to which one can compare the post-fracking situation. We need to start collecting comprehensive baseline data.

Another astonishing fact is the amount of leakage and wastage (flaring). Different speakers talked about efforts to lessen the leakage and flaring but, given that gas is a finite resource as well, it seemed a perfect example of short term gain and long term pain. The gas is not going anywhere. What is the rush to extract it now? Why not leave it where it is and explore alternative and renewable sources of energy? There might be some short term jobs and some some short term money put into the Yukon economy but the sealed up wells, leakage and detritus will be with us for a long time. I did not hear anything that convinced me that we would not be looking at another Faro situation where we will be cleaning up for a long, long time. I do not know if anyone has ever compared what the Yukon and Canadian economies received from the Faro mine and what we have paid out in clean up costs, tax write offs, infrastructure costs and social upheaval. There was talk of some sort of an industry fund in the case of bankruptcy but it definitely was not clear that we had any kind of an idea of how large such a fund would really need to be.

I think that hydraulic fracturing represents too many risks to the health of Yukoners and the air we breathe and the water that keeps us alive. The only benefit I can see in this whole process is that it might force us to use our resources (hydro power and water especially) more carefully and perhaps force us to seriously examine renewable energy sources. We need to make sure that the Yukon remains a safe, healthy environment for future generations. I implore the committee to say no to hydraulic fracturing and recommend that the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing must be extended indefinitely.

●  Forde, Jan (Feb 16, 2014)

I am opposed to any fracking in the territory. Given the cataclysmic consequences of the burning of fossil fuels on the entire planet, it's madness to allow for any further exploration, never mind development, of oil and gas resources. In addition to this overarching concern is the fact that fracking releases more harmful emissions, including methane gas, than conventional methods of fossil fuel extraction. That's the global perspective. Here in the territory, we want our wild lands and, most importantly, our precious water resources protected. Fracking represents a reckless disregard for the health of our ground water, rivers and streams and the eco-systems they support. Industry, of course, claims it's safe, but countless people have experienced the ill effects. Right now our only hope lies in a long overdue concerted effort to develop green alternatives. Lets protect our land and water and do our part to reverse the ever-increasing rate of climate change. Lets put all of our vision and creativity into new, green energy sources and infrastructure.

●  Lee, Teagan (Feb 16, 2014)

Dear Committee,
I believe that hydraulic fracturing is very risky in comparison with the benefits. Certainly, there will be a short term gain of economic importance. However, the Whitehorse economy will barely feel this impact as most of the employees and businesses that engage in hydraulic fracturing are not of the territory and will not remain here once the land has been used. The risks are many including: a number of health risks, many environmental risks, displacement of animals (which is occurring too much as it is. For example: we have seen an increase in the number of bears coming into town due to habitat destruction/disturbance), aesthetic risks (example: how can we claim to be a beautiful wilderness territory when we are mutilating the land) and finally ethical risks (this includes impact of First Nations people, future generations etc.). I am very much against fracturing. I was born and raised in the Yukon. I feel that external cooperation's and organizations are not stakehold ers in this process and should not have any say in how the territories resources are used. Please seek more environmentally and ethically sound ways of developing the territory.
Thanks Teagan Lee

●  Girard, Louise (Feb 15, 2014)

I urge you to consider the effects of fracking on drinking water, environment etc. The Yukon is one of the last place on earth where we have clean drinking water. we need to protect it for future generations. I have read and followed what is happening across our beautiful country, I have relatives that work in the oil and gas industry and I have been able to read a lot of documents and I cannot believe that our government would be so short sighted to allow our territory to be destroyed. for what purposes? please look at other viable alternatives, it is imperative for the future of the Yukon.

●  Martin, Mike (Feb 14, 2014)

Truthfully I only know a little about fracking but I am learning slowly and it scares me. I have heard testimony from neutral people........ people that have nothing to gain or lose financially from fracking and it scares them. These are professors and people that have worked in the industry but quit because of the disaterous environmental repercussions. I visualize the process generating enough revenue so that we may all be able to afford bottled water to drink, as opposed to banning fracking and letting us drink fresh clean water from our streams and wells.
I am passionately and somewhat educated against fracking in the Yukon and anywhere else in the world for that matter.
Please..... listen to the people of the Yukon this time.
Thank- you.
Mike Martin

●  Rhein, Werner (Feb 14, 2014)

My comments to the YG Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing.

First I want to express my appreciation that I can have the opportunity to voice my concerns about this energy extracting technology, which is like a war on the environment.
I won't go into the Nitty gritty of the important technical details; I would like to make you aware of the BIG PICTURE.

I also know that I'm not alone with my concerns, there are Millions of people around this Earth who are daily expressing their concerns and experiences from being fracked, ignored by their representatives in Governments and personally violated by the practices from the fossil fuel extraction Industry and energy producing Industry from fossil fuels and nuclear energy Industry.
I mention these two groups in the same sentence because they are connected financially on the top and by greed.
The very people who are in most cases elected by the people and in positions with the mandate to protect and better the lives of their electorate are also influenced and misguided by factually incorrect information from the same Industries they should regulate and not just promote.
I feel personally insulted (and I know that all the people who are affected by this issue feel the same) me personally not so much physically but more mentally because of the constant misinformation released by the Industries and Governments.
Especially in this time and age where so much scientific and anecdotal information is easy accessible via electronic medias and every one who is interested in the trues can inform himself and compare.
I had already some knowledge about fossil fuels through the training and experiences in my trade and what I have seen during my lifetime. Because of that I also have knowledge and experiences with alternative energy, especially in the form of space heating. Through this training I knew since my apprenticeship in the late 1950th and early 1960th that Natural Gas is not cleaner than the other fossil fuels, NO that it has much more impact on the environment and the health of all live on earth. But the Industry, do to their insane monetary gains could influence the public medias and with that created a false security in the minds of most people.
But if the populace would have not be so much occupied with their day by day struggle with consumerism and the hysteria of gladiator sports, which both are controlled by the very Industries who are profiting so much from this, they may would have realized earlier what is really happening to them.

No other living creature on this earth is so self destructive as the Homo sapiens, especially in the last 250 years. This species is supposed to be of superior intelligence to all the others.

So why are we not acting like it.

We have all the means technologically, mentally and financially to be able to change this downwards spiraling and go into a direction of sustainability, better living standards for all of us on this earth, NOT just for a very few of us.

I know this is not an easy task to start swimming against a strong current but with knowledge and technology and political will it is possible. I know it would also need a lot of common sense and civil courage to do so.

But is this not the very essence leaders should be made of.

I urge you to be leaders, leaders who guide us into a sustainable future.
You would be not alone, there are humans who are doing so already.

Ban Fossil Fuel extraction in Yukon, save it for a future point of time. When it may be able to be done safer and more profitable.

Do not destroy the future of this Planet.

Werner Rhein, a citizen of this Planet.

●  Hill, Spence (Feb 14, 2014)

Ban fracking in the territory. We do not need this potentially dangerous practice which threatens the water systems in perpetuity. We need to focus exclusively on renewable energy particularly wind and solar, not big hydro schemes. We also need to massively reduce energy consumption. If mining companies need power, they should generate their own, using renewable. It should not be the responsiblity of the public utilities to generate energy for mines.

Fracking is being opposed by forward thinking governments but the Yukon government seems to want to invite industry to do whatever they want. Yukoners are very concerned about this short sighted view and want our government to take a strong environmental stand against this dangerous practice. We have a responsibility to the future to protect water which is necessary for all life.

●  Roberts, Donald (Feb 14, 2014)

Yukoners Concerned about Oil and Gas Development believes that the majority of presentations made to the Select Committee hearings about the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing on January 31 and February 1 justify, indeed, make necessary, an outright ban on fracking in Yukon.

The prospect of producing our own oil and gas may seem very inviting, but the hydraulic fracturing that is needed to extract those non-renewable fossil fuels from Yukon’s shale comes with impacts to our water, land, air, wildlife and human health that we will bear during development and that will live on long after the last extractable drop is fracked out of the ground.Since water is the basis of all hydraulic fracturing, hydrologist Dr Gilles Wendling spoke of the “intimate connection” between surface and groundwater and the importance of understanding water’s movement. When Wendling said, “We are extremely ignorant about groundwater in the Yukon”, Currie Dixon, Minister of the Environment and committee member, nodded in agreement. (Yukon monitors groundwater in 7 locations, only one of which is in northern Yukon). Wendling said, “We must know the story of water around every drill site” if we wish to understand the impacts drilling, the possible leakage of well casings, the removal of water from groundwater sources and the disposal of “produced (water permanently contaminated by fracking chemicals) will have on the area. Dr Wendling made clear that damages to water systems may be permanent and irreversible. When Wendling asked, “Can we have shale gas wells disconnected from nature?”, the answer is obvious. Finally, he reminded us that it is “important for us and future generations” that we “be stewards of water.”

Dr Bernhard Mayer, professor of Geoscience at the University of Calgary, and Dr Rick Chalaturnyk, professor of Geotechnical Engineering at the University of Alberta, tried to reassure that successful exploitation of oil and gas was all about managing risk, making sure, in Mayer’s words, that “good baseline data must happen before development” and, from Chalaturnyk, that there must be “an appropriate regulatory framework“ in place. On the other hand, referring to industry's claims to be able to absolutely seal wells and casings, Dr Mayer said there is “considerable uncertainty” about these claims. Statistics from Alberta’s regulator of oil and gas also refute industry’s claims. From 2005-2010, 15-20% of wells inspected were not in compliance. Dr Mayer also said, there was “an astounding lack of information” about the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Which begs the question, “Why wou ld you risk allowing hydraulic fracturing when there are so many unknowns?”

When asked if fracking can be done safely, Adam Goehner of the Pembina Institute, responded,“We don’t have enough information” to answer the question. He described how rapid technological change has created gaps in knowledge. He also emphasized the need to understand the hydrology of an area before any development takes place and he warned of the “ecological threshold” where “a small change in external conditions causes rapid change in an ecosystem which may no longer be able to return to its original state.”

As expected, industry people from EFLO and Northern Cross spoke about the royalties, the possibility of jobs and the possibility of supplying Yukon with oil and gas. Refined where? Risks to the environment were minimized.

It was left to the Fort Nelson First Nations’ representatives, Chief Sharleen Gale and Lands and Resources Director Lana Lowe, to put a human face to the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on a community, the environment and a way of life. For them fracking has been a nightmare. She pointed to impacts on water (drawdowns for frack water have lowered lake and river levels), health, wildlife, air quality and vegetation. Chief Gale stated several times that the First Nations still hasn’t agreed to natural gas development in their territory but it is proceeding regardless. She pleaded for the First Nations to be allowed to retain 9% of their territory in a pristine state.

In the United States where, yes, hydraulic fracturing is proceeding apace, the Environmental Protection Agency (the senior body overseeing the environment in the U.S.) is at last conducting a study “to understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and groundwater”. It is expected to release this report late in 2014. They readily admit that “further research is needed" into potential impacts on air, ecosystems, occupational risks etc. Their website also states that there are “well-documented impacts in areas with natural gas development, with increases in emissions of methane, volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants”.

Yukon, do we really want to go down this path? Why the great haste to embrace this harmful technology?

Yukon communities, demand that the Select Committee on the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing visit you, so that you can express your concerns.

Rick Griffiths & Don Roberts

●  Berken, Ernie (Feb 14, 2014)

I am not in support of oil and gas exploration/development in the Yukon.
To date, we have had our share of mining development with mixed results.
On the up side, it has created temporary economic opportunities that keeps some of the money flowing within Yukon.
On the downside, some companies leave us with a legacy of waste that can have a permanent flow lasting many years and costing taxpayers more money than what was generated initially (Faro's minesite is a case in point).
No one ever talks about the scars that will be left on the landscape once oil/gas exploration is permitted.
Northern British Columbia bears those scars and when seen from the air, the natural beauty of the region is overshadowed by those scars. Should we be seen as having the same disregard for our land.
Currently, tourism in the Yukon is on the upswing. Should we be compromising this industry as others do in other jurisdictions for the quick and non-renewable dollars that will come from oil and gas development.
Oil and gas development is non-sustainable if we look at it in our global environment. Mankind is slowly choking itself to death when we continue to use fossil fuels. When naturalists want to be in a pristine environment to get away from it all, where will they go. Presently, Yukon is one of those few places in Canada (and perhaps the world) where one can go to experience an unspoiled landscape. As time goes on, more and more people will want to visit the Yukon for what it is right now.
Start putting in all those cut lines and roads in the bush looking for oil and gas and we might as well join the others who live in the south. If oil and gas is found far and wide here, you know what that will look like.
Any government who promotes oil and gas development in Yukon on one hand and then tries to promote tourism in Yukon on the other should be labelled as hypocritical.
Mining leaves enough scars on the landscape and we are fortunate that this sort of development has been gradual over the years. Gas and oil exploration will sweep through this land at lightning speed in comparison. There is just too much money behind these corporations without conscience. The more heroic and honourable thing to do would be to say "No Thanks" to them.

●  Esselink, Angeline (Feb 13, 2014)

Inch by inch they gain sad....we have a rudderless gov't.

●  Schaefer, Noreen (Feb 13, 2014)

Having lived in Alberta and been involved with the impacts of the oil & gas industry, I can only say opening the Yukon to hydraulic fracturing will be a real disservice to the environment and residents. There are simply too many unknowns with respect to cumulative impacts on land and water.

●  Harker, Davina (Feb 13, 2014)

Do Not Frack

I am one of the thousands who stand together in the pursuit to stop Fracking.

Leave the fossil fuel in the ground until there is certainty industry will create true economic benefits to Yukoners and others without the degradation of air, water, land, and the social harmony of the people within Yukon. If we focused the same amount of energy and funds on renewable energy as we are on the extraction of fossil fuels, these past years, we would now have an economic engine in Yukon and the renewable energy sources to support our modern needs and new mining ventures.

I was present at the hearings January 31st, and again on February 1st.

Regulations are moot if the will of industry does not follow them. All the cases of violation of regulations are treated after the fact, not before, hence the destruction is now a living crisis for the area where the incident happened. Note: NEB was unable to answer most questions – very revealing and there are cases where they sat on important information – an injustice to society.

When I was within the mining district in Yukon, many years ago, there was a miner whom each night went out and diverted the creek for his gain. He would then return it to the channel before morning. The majority of miners are very respectful of what is correct and it only takes a few to negate the care of many. This was a very small enterprise, the current business ventures in pursuit of fossil fuels are huge, from somewhere else, answer to shareholders and the markets, not Yukoners.

Then, there is FIPPA to consider. Do we sell our soul for 30 years of degradation, believing we are creating an economic engine for Yukon? Where is the economic benefit should we, at a later date, now experienced and sunk in the plight of our lands becoming a waste land, realize we are trapped, owned, directed, by foreign interests whom have no interest in our well-being and/or preserving what we hold dear and near?

Many have written, given testimonials, researched, tested, done the science, and some have presented at your hearings – the body of evidence is present – we do not know enough about fracking to be swimming in this pool – currently there is no life jacket capable of keeping us SAFE.

Fracking will eventually gut the tourist industry, our lands, our rivers, our children. Let’s “mine” people – give them “a” once-in-a-lifetime experience no longer available in the rest of the world and in the meantime let’s get to work on reducing our consumption of energy and finding solutions of renewables for future demand.

●  Baerg, Deborah (Feb 13, 2014)

IN GOD's NAME - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep Our BEAUTIFUL YUKON TERRITORY Frack Free! We have 7 generations ahead we all have to think about and protect long after we are gone from this world! You must think about your great great great grandchildren - What will they have in the future - No beautiful landscapes to hike or bike or have a nice family picnic. Our streams, rivers, lakes will not be safe at all for any kind of consumption!
Our Precious wildlife need the land to be clean of fracking in extreme mass areas so they can grow and feed their young in their natural habitats. If people think that we will not suffer major consequences from going ahead with this VERY BAD IDEA they are very wrong! We all know that money can't buy happiness. "God Speed - Hear our Prayers" KEEP YUKON FRACK FREE !!

●  Stephen, J (Feb 13, 2014)

Fracking at first sounds like a great idea ! Promises of more jobs and becoming energy independent sounds fantastic. But the benefits of fracking do not outweigh the negative impacts of fracking. This not only impacts our generation but future generations . There are many reasons not to allow fracking in the Yukon.

Our main concern is poisoned water, displaced wildlife, health and First Nations losing cultural traditions & connection to the land due to Oil & Gas Industry invading untouched territory. The statement "Fracking is safe for people who live nearby" has been found to be not true new research suggests that the most vulnerable humans: newborn infants are being effected.They have found that proximity to fracking increased the likelihood of low birth weight by more than half. The list goes on and on and government is aware of this ... they need to see and hear more Public Participation for "No Fracking" to be taking seriously and not just looking at the bottom line. There is a need for an ambitious national energy policy that champions investment in solar and wind energy over extreme energy from fossil fuels. Robert Kennedy Jr. shared with Yukoners his international experience of seeing fracking and the negative impacts firsthand; the majority of fracki ng results are not positive. Yes governments & large corporations pockets are getting wider but the communities are not seeing any positive benefits in the long run. More research and testing needs to be done on fracking before moving forward in Yukon.

Below are a two links :


●  Welscott, James (Feb 13, 2014)

Fracking takes a huge toll on affected communities, generates massive volumes of toxic waste, creates hazardous air pollution problems, poses long-term risks to vital drinking water resources and threatens to lock in catastrophic changes to our climate and landscape. We need to ban fracking now!!!

The term “fracking” is shorthand for hydraulic fracturing. After drilling down to a rock formation that holds oil or natural gas, and then drilling sideways through this targeted layer of rock, operators inject, under extreme pressure, millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to fracture (or “frack”) the rock. Without these fractures, oil or natural gas would remain tightly held in the rock, unable to flow up the well.

Please listen to the PUBLIC and RESIDENTS of the Yukon. To me and all residents of the Yukon fracking represents all that the specific process of hydraulic fracturing entails: marred landscapes and fragmented forests; roads crowded with heavy-duty trucks carrying water; chemicals and toxic waste; earthquakes related to disposal of this waste, and a legacy of air pollution, water pollution, climate pollution and public health problems.

As a resident of the Yukon I urge you to listen to the People you represent
Thank you

●  Ness, Claire (Feb 13, 2014)

We must ban fracking and cancel the LNG project!

It has been repeatedly proven all over the world that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water - poisoning plants, animals, and us.

I am not against mining, I am not against development, but I am against this particularly irresponsible way of tapping into our precious resources.

Please, do not take the Yukon down a dirty road, when we have the option of being innovative and respectful of our mother land.

Here is the letter I sent to YESAB about the LNG project:

As a born-and-bred Yukoner with much love and pride for the territory, I am very concerned that the proposal to build an LNG plant is a HUGE step backwards in a world of new and exciting renewable energy ideas.

Apart from the ecological costs, this project would cost HUGE amounts of public money, and would continue to cost HUGE amounts of public money, without creating continuing and sustainable jobs. This money would be way better spent on renewable energy alternatives such as wind and river power, which will cost less, create jobs that last for much longer than the building phase, and have relatively no ecological impact.

Once upon a time, the country of Iceland had an economic and energy crisis. They faced a tough decision. Spend their dwindling funds on quick fixes like LNG plants. Or, take a courageous leap by spending those funds on developing and putting in place sustainable energy systems. Here are some stats:

About 85% of all houses in Iceland are heated with geothermal energy.

Renewable energy provides almost 100 percent of electricity production, with about 75 percent coming from hydropower and 25 percent from geothermal power.
In 2013, Iceland also became a producer of wind energy.

Iceland is the world’s largest green energy producer per capita and largest electricity producer per capita.
Iceland now has a stable and sustainable economy and environment

We can take a courageous leap too!

If our public utility burns LNG to meet our growing electricity needs, I am deeply concerned that a fracking industry will become established in the Yukon to supply this market. Hydraulic fracturing should not be supported ANYWHERE, especially not here in the Yukon, home to one of the last pieces of BIG WILDERNESS left in the world!

Not only does the LNG project undermine renewable energy alternatives, but it does not have long-term viability for the environment, or the econonomy. The Yukon Conservation Society, who does not support the project, said it best:

"The proponent has not presented adequate evidence to suggest this is a socially, environmentally and economically sustainable project. Alternatives exist, in the form of renewable energy, and efficiency and conservation
strategies, that YEC must pursue to ensure a sustainable energy future for the Yukon."

Thank you for considering public opinion in your assessment.
Claire Ness

●  Ceriko, Paul (Feb 12, 2014)

As the world population grows, the area of pristine wilderness declines due to migration and resource development. We have come to a point in time where we must begin to make decisions based on reasons other then economics. The time has come for conservation while there is still time to forestall disaster. I believe there is ample evidence to, at the very least, put a moratorium on all hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon, and the rest of Canada as well. We cannot afford to take chances with what little wild land is left to us. We must find other ways to satiate our need for energy and above all, we must learn to conserve. I would suggest that everyone watch the Ted talk by Paul Gilding, "The Earth Is Full." We live in a democratic nation. It would be a travesty if the desires of the people were ignored, and I have met no Yukoners who are strongly for hydraulic fracturing. I work in the public sector and talk to many people. Most are ha rd against, and a small number of people are indifferent, or would like to see more independent studies done. We must remember that once done, it is difficult or impossible to undo. Wisdom and prudence are the order of the day.

Thank you for giving me a place to express my views on this subject.

●  Delau, Katy (Feb 12, 2014)

I am opposed to fracking in the Yukon.
There are too many unknowns in the hydraulic fracturing business, and I believe this is reason enough to refuse its use in the Yukon.
I don't think it is worth risking our water for this endeavour.
Water is vital for our survival as a species.
I know that one day clean water will be more valuable than gold or oil or LNG.
Please consider the long term consequences and be pre-emptive.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Katy Delau

●  Briggs, Liesel (Feb 12, 2014)

We are opposed to Hydraulic fracturing from an environmental and health perspective. It has been termed an environmental disaster. It is known to be a health risk.

Why do you want to risk creating a desert where there now is paradise?

Additionally we - the YUKON government - as all governments should be working on sustainable, clean, green methods of energy - fuel production. It is absolutely essential as well, to institute - in Whitehorse - the use of public transit. The "traffic flow" on Hamilton boulevard or into Riverdale does not need to be long snaking lines of cars while buses idle empty.

Considering fracturing is akin to shooting each and every one of our future generations inheritance.

For what? For grid lines and pipelines? For poison gas (two breaths will kill you) and a poisoned territory?

It sounds like the government wishes to create an armageddon. There are no benefits. There are only risks.
Thank you,
Briggs family

●  Davis, Paul (Feb 12, 2014)

All: I urge you to ban fracking.
The risks to ground water in our subarctic semi-desert are not worth taking.

My MA Thesis was on offshore oil operations in the North Atlantic.

It taught me that the industry cannot self-regulate. Industry ran circles around government regulators, who, like here, pretty much had to announce their arrival in advance given the isolated nature of the rigs and few means of transport to them.

Lots of people died. We call that the Ocean Ranger Marine Disaster.

We do not have to go the route of fracking.

We can make better, more efficient use of existing hydro through serious investments in unsexy things like better insulation in houses, and shifting our hot water tanks to heat at night, with timers. Then shift as much as possible towards renewable energy.

We are in the very last gasps of the hydrocarbon economy. It would be a senseless loss to screw up the land and waters that we love for a couple of years of fracked gas.
Paul Davis

●  Reichenbach, Liz (Feb 12, 2014)


I would like to add my voice to supporting the banning of fracking practices of any kind in the Yukon. There is much evidence that this cannot be done safely enough to adequately ameliorate the frightening risks.

In the best interests of the Yukon Territory and it's residents, fracking of any kind (including LNG) must be banned throughout.
Liz Reichenbach

●  Kaltenbach, Evelyn (Feb 12, 2014)

Dear Yukoners, Government and everyone else:
Fracking is NOT an option! Not only does it pollute the water and destroy the layers beneath the surface - it also uses an incredible amount of water, energy and money, that is NOT recoverable. Profit from fracking is minimal and the resources usually dry up within 5 years. Land and water are polluted, resources marginalized - all this for minimal profit and extensive hazards.
WHY would anyone, anywhere agree to this?
PLEASE look at the big picture and BAN FRACKING!!
With thanks from our future generations, our wildlife and our land.

●  Statnyk, Marie (Feb 12, 2014)

I am a proud member of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nations and I oppose any fracking activity in the Yukon, especially our traditional territory. We are just normal people- we are not opposed to development or eco activists but in good conscience we can't just sit and not speak out against fracking in the Yukon. Industry does not just affect the economy- it affects the environment and social structure. I ask that you bear with me, to express my opinion there are so many factors involved.

You were presented with compelling evidence in regards to the damage fracking poses to our environment ie; testament from the Ft Nelson chief on how fracking has affected their water and their wildlife; The two First Nation’s representatives said the B.C. government has not respected their rights as First Nations and has not adequately consulted them nor included them in the regulatory process, and they fear it will only get worse in their territory; testimony from Giles Wendling, hydrogeologist- once fractured it permanently modifies the subsurface; impossible to fix; could be devastating for water sheds and ecosystem.

My husband and I worked in the Ft nelson area 12 years ago for Encana- our job was to recondition black bears to stay away from job sites. We did this with dogs and electric fences. With all this development it definitely affected the patterns of the wildlife, especially black bears. They became so habituated that they posed a threat to the workers as they had no fear of man. Their natural habitat was destroyed and it was all foreign to them. As far as we know the practice today is to shoot, shovel and shut up. This in turn creates other behavioural issues as most of the bears killed are boars. This affects population for one as boars play a major role in natural birth control. For years the Vuntut Gwitchin have worked hard to protect the Porcupine Caribou Herd. This will no doubt have an affect on their migration routes. The Vuntut Gwitchin rely primarily on the caribou for their main food source. As you know many can not afford to buy food from the local store.

We presently live on a rural acreage in Alberta. When we moved here 8 years ago there was very little activity. To date we have approx 30 gas wells within a one mile radius. It is mandatory in Alberta if they are drilling within a half mile of your property that they get a water analysis on your well. Problem of this being there are two types of tests- one is very generic and it not admissable in court, this costs between 300- 400 dollars. The more comprehensive test admissable in court costs 12- 15 hundred dollars. At the time we were unaware of this. About a year after activity began we noticed an oily film on standing water on our property. We contacted Encana who did a test on our water quality- the test they did was a generalized one that showed nothing alarming. We had to install an expensive water treatment system for our drinking water. Each year our water is becoming increasingly smelly- like a sulfur smell but you can't go back on the company more than s ix months after the fact. So you see as residents we don't have alot of say on how our water quality is affected. There are some major lawsuits pending on this same issue by local landowners in Alberta.

We live a mile and a half from the Red Deer River and there is a restriction on the amount of fish we can consume in a week. White muscle disease in cattle is a myodegenerative disorder that results from selenium deficiency. The type we're seeing is the skeletal muscle form. One of the mechanisms for selinium deficiency is the result of antagonistic effects of certain metals such as silver, copper, cobalt, mercury and tin. It shows up in the young and they usually die within two to three days of birth. White muscle disease was almost unheard of east of Hwy 2- it is usually associated with areas that have gray wooded soil. If you talk to any vet as to why this is happening they will tell you off record and off record only that is directly related with cadmium which is related to flaring and other oil and gas activity. Even though the selenium and vitamins and minerals they need is in the foliage and grass it is unable to be metabolized by the animal as it is locked in by the effects of the cadmium. White muscle disease is not restricted to cattle, it is in goats, horses, pigs,fish and sheep. In some countries extensive studies have shown that this disease is a bio indicator of cadmium pollution. I would hope that there are extensive studies done in widlife before any oil and gas development. I resent the comments of Currie Dixon in the Yukon hunting regulations that they are doing away with cadmium testing on some species of wildlife. There should be more testing done before and after oil and gas development to better monitor levels of cadmium.

Now on the effects of industry on social and cultural levels. We were privileged to work in a First Nations community in Northern Alberta for a year and a half. We experienced firsthand the devastation in this community directly related to oil and gas development. Unfortunately industry brings corruption- a select chosen few, mainly in leadership positions benefit from the money. With this I mean millions of dollars. This reserve should be one of the richest in the province but most of the people live in poverty and conditions found in third world countries. Even though the reserve is smaller than Old Crow not only do these people live in complete poverty they have all but lost their culture, they also have an extremely high addiction problem and with the exception of a select few are dependent on social services for an income. The saddest fact of all is they have lost their sense of who they are as a people.

Fracking is in our news almost daily- here are some excerpts from a recent article
Licence data shows fracking an unregulated free-for-all in Alberta: NDP
Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press Feb 4, 2014 02:20:28 PM
-NDP Leader Brian Mason presented information Tuesday provided under freedom-of-information laws that shows the number of hydraulic fracturing licences granted by the province soared 647 per cent last year to 1,516.
-“Most Albertans don’t realize that fracking in Alberta is almost completely unregulated,” he told a legislature news conference
-He said the water loss alone is sobering, with more than 17 million cubic metres used in 2013.
-Mason said it’s too late for a moratorium on fracking in Alberta.
“The horse is kind of out of the barn. It’s a mainstream activity now.”

The govt states that it will be good for the economy- many jobs will sustain the people of the Yukon. Once the politicing is done and the agreements are signed then you will see the influx of foreign workers. Industry and govt will fill the quota of the token aboriginal workers which is very minimal. This is what is happening in Alberta-

Laid-off workers say Pacer Promec isn't hiring them back
CBC News
Posted:Feb 10, 2014 6:52 PM MT
Last Updated:Feb 10, 2014 6:52 PM MT
Unionized Canadian workers at the Kearl oilsands mine who lost their jobs to temporary foreign workers from Croatia say the contractor has reneged on a promise to rehire them.

Last week, Pacer Promec announced it would rehire about 60 workers who are members of the Ironworkers Union.

Oilsands jobs being taken by temp foreign workers, union says
Oilsands company to rehire employees after foreign worker controversy
On Monday, the company said that it has rehired Canadian workers — but not the ones who were laid off.

Vic Nilson, one of the unionized workers who was laid off, says the company betrayed them.

“They said that we were all going to be reinstated and given our jobs back up there, with that company. And I've heard nothing,” he said.

“We got kicked to the curb here and I don't think it's right. Not at all.”

The union says that the Croatian workers are still on site.

Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, called the move by Pacer Promec “damage control.”

"So those Canadians who lost their jobs are still out of work,” he said. “And I think Canadians should still be outraged by the way that the company has used a program to get rid of a bunch of highly skilled Canadian tradespeople."

A spokesman for federal employment minister Jason Kenney says the matter is still under investigation.

Pacer Promec believes it will be cleared of any wrongdoing.

The Yukon govt wants to convert energy to natural gas in the Yukon. Instead of drilling in the Yukon what about the option of importing natural gas from Northern BC. As for the savings to the consumer we live in oil country and we don't get any special discounts!!! In closing I find it abhorent how the Yukon party completely ignored the concerns of our First Nations people and elected to open up 80 percent of the Peel River Watershed to development. What a waste of money- seven years of consultation and millions of dollars later. Sadly I feel that the same thing will happen when it comes to oil and gas development in the North Yukon. Northern Cross would not have invested 80 million dollars for speculation. Some politicians have said that there will be strict regulations on industry- how will it be any different from how the BC and Alberta govts regulate industry. Once you let them in it creates a system of govt where it is literally the tail wagging the dog- the ta il being big oil, the dog being the govt.

Mahsi for listening to my concerns
Marie Statnyk

I implore you to watch this short video clip- I do not want this to be the testament of one of my VGFN elders in ten years.

●  Skelton, Jenny (Feb 11, 2014)

Having looked at both sides of the argument, I feel that hydraulic fracturing is safe, but must be used with caution. We live in a huge territory with a very small population, so we need to get this into perspective and not bow to hysteria. I wonder how many people have actually researched both sides before voicing loudly their opposition to fracking.

●  Roberts, Donald (Feb 11, 2014)

I attended the Legislative Assembly Select Committee presentations held on Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2014. I was impressed with the hydrology presentation by Dr. Giles Wendling and Chief Sharleen Gale/Lana Lowe's presentation from the Ft. Nelson First Nations.

Dr. Wendling discussed the geology of shale formations and the natural pathways found in our sub strata. He emphasized that drilling for oil/gas creates more pathways and eventually these pathways inter-connect from one layer to the next. In unconventional drilling that takes place in shale billions of litres of water are used with hundreds of chemicals, and sand. Besides the depletion of large volumes of water laced with poisonous chemicals this fracking fluid is poisoned forever. Eventually this fracking fluid moves throughout the geology and will end up in our aquifers, rivers, lakes and ground water.

Dr. Wendling strongly recommended that base line data on ground water, rivers, aquifers, lakes etc be undertaken before any activity takes place on the land.

Chief Gale and Lana Lowe(Director of Lands) stated that the process of hydraulic fracturing was a nightmare in the Ft. Nelson area. She said that the Ft. Nelson First Nations have not said "yes" to fracking on their land even though since 2007 they have drilled thousands of gas wells on their land. They shared with the audience and Select Committee that their caribou and moose populations have declined significantly and many of these animals are not fit for harvesting. They also shared that many of their berries and healing plants cannot be found. When Ft. Nelson First Nation people go out on the land they must bring bottled water as they can no longer drink the water from the land. The land mass in the North East B.C. is covered with cutlines, seismic lines and roads thus having huge impacts on the wildlife and First Nation people.

Chief Gale's caution was if you do not have Fracking taking place in your Territory do not let the industry in.

Chief Gale stated that fracking is connected to the use of LNG in the Yukon.

Once your water is poisoned forever and taken out of the water hydrology why would Yukoners want to go down this path?

The decision to frack or not to frack in the Yukon has to be made by all Yukoners not just politicians.

Therefore, it is important that the fracking committee visit all Yukon communities and that a referendum take place on this life threatening process.

In conclusion because Fracking is a high risk activity and that there are many unanswered questions on the consequences of this type of unconventional drilling it should be banned in the Yukon. Many countries, provinces( Quebec and Newfoundland now have moratoriums), cities and municipalities have banned fracking in their area.
Don Roberts
Yukoners Concerned About Oil/Gas Exploration Development

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Feb 9, 2014)

Hi Committee,
Let me share with you a potential risk when fracturing the ground.
Youtube: Westwood Lake night mare 1 & 2.

My question is: What is the scientific idea that best practices can regulate: quote ''An acceptable threshold for fugitive emissions (including venting) for natural gas produc) on should be <0.4%''?

Do you think there were any scientist around these wells? Measuring at night?
I believe we should stay away from the idea that this industry (Oil & Gas) can be regulated, especially with the best regulation in the world. Oil & gas industry is way way worse and cannot be compared with mining. I encourage the committee to investigate seriously both sides because we are talking about thousands of wells (with potential risks) if fracking is permitted in the Yukon.
Thank you very much. Jacqueline Vigneux

●  Devries, John (Feb 6, 2014)

I fully support the Fracturing based on my own research. I have friends in Minot ND and visited there several times. There has been intensive work done in the area and no negative effects. The article in the Yukon news recently and the negative comments are based almost entirely on Environmental groups planting negative thoughts in the minds of the First Nations and using them to further their cause. There is nothing to fear from drinking the water from the streams. Beaver Fever is not caused by Fracturing. A trapper friend of mine has had his fur harvest increase around activity as he has more access and can manage his trapline better as this puts him in a better position to rotate where he traps from one year to the other. The water situation in ND has not been a issue however the last few springs they have had above average run off so that could be a issue in a dry year. In fact there was a guest speaker from the Fort Nelson Band last spr ing that indicated the main issue with the Fort Nelson Band was that they were not prepared to take full advantage of the fracking labour and contracting opportunities so he urged LFN to get involved and be ready should things develop. We in Watson Lake would love to see natural gas here it could be used to get our forest industry back on track although I am aware that natural gas here could be many years down the road. I have not spoken with anyone around here that is opposed based on good science. There are those that have been swayed by false info. If people are getting stopped by security when more then likely they are on a road that was not there in the first place.There are many benefits as the Kotanalee field has been a source of royalties for both Gov and First Nations as well as economic benefits in drilling transportation and labor. And Natural gas as a energy source is greener.

●  Holt, James (Feb 6, 2014)

After attending a couple of seminars on fracking over the past few months, reading about fracking online and in literature on the subject I am satisfied that governments, industry, and research institutions have qualified the process of fracking to such an extent that it is an environmentally safe procedure when done per regulations and government oversight that exists today. This is especially true where correct mapping of previous wells is accurate and relatively few, like in the Yukon, compared to other areas that have had almost a century of drilled wells that are not that well mapped.

●  Shannon, Andy (Feb 6, 2014)

oil and gas is the only way the yukon can build its own sustainable economy for all the yukon this to me is a no brainer yah?

●  Johnston, Sandy (Feb 5, 2014)

Heard about this on the noon news.  Links to actual paper are in the article.  I wonder if there is any relevance to/concerns about  wildlife!!??   Eagle Plains is caribou overwintering habitat and pregnant cows are present.  I would assume sensitivity during early gestation is high (as noted with humans in this article).  Anyone looking at neural tube/fetal deformations in wildlife?? I somehow doubt it.
Best we wait awhile and let the data on baselines and cumulative impacts emerge- there is no rush/urgency that can justify getting into this at this time.  That was abundantly clear from the public proceedings.

●  Streicker, John (Feb 2, 2014)

Please find attached a submission to the Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing. I present this to you in my capacity as a scientist / expert in the area of greenhouse gas emissions with consideration to natural gas production. If you require any clarification of my submission or if I may assist the select committee in its deliberations, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, John Streicker
Brief: Potential risks of fugitive emissions from natural gas development 

●  Hamilton, Norm (Feb 2, 2014)

I have been a Yukoner for the past 40 years until health reasons forced us to least for the time being.

I am appalled that the Yukon government would even consider the possibility of hydraulic fracturing when, worldwide, the results have been detrimental to the environment, watersheds and the population surrounding places where "fracking" is taking place.

The First Nations traditional way of living would be forever changed as the fish, fowl and wildlife is either destroyed or moves off due to the poisoning of watersheds and aquifers.

Yukon's reputation for being a pristine wilderness with clean water and unspoiled vastness would be sullied, thus causing irreparable damage to the tourism industry.

In short, I believe it necessary to preserve the environment before satisfying the demands of the shareholders of oil and gas companies.
Norm Hamilton

●  Annett, Richard (Jan 31, 2014)

REF; EFLO discussion;
No mention was made on the bedrock faults/fractures/bedding strata/permiability/porosity nor an independant assessment on risks with the formations.
No comment on the nature of the ground water was made; levels, ground water movement etc. nor an independant assessment on risks if gas gets out.
No comments were made on decommissioning nor independant assessments on completion.
Nothing was mentioned about independant 3rd party monitoring of monitoring wells and access to the data.

Nothing was stated about what is pumped into the ground and why.
Nothing was mentioned about pumpback water and potential for contamination.
Nothing was mentioned on water requirements or where that water comes from.
Nothing was mentioned about what will be in place if there is a problem
Nothing was mentioned on requirements on bonds/insurance in the event of a problem and remediation needed.

●  Desmarais, Claire (Jan 31, 2014)

As far as I can see, there are no benefits of hydraulic fracturing in the Yukon.
The risks are that our pristine clean water supplies, be they rivers and lakes or underground aquifers, get polluted beyond any means of reclaiming them to present status. Why risk this? If you ask the question of the experts and they answer truthfully, they will tell you that there is no absolute guarantee that no pollution will result from hydraulic fracturing, whether it be from equipment breaking down or workers not following standard operating procedures.
I stress, once it is polluted, there is no turning back. Why take that chance?
To meet our and future generations energy needs, we need to seriously look at renewables. The knowledge and experience on generating these is readily available. We just need the political will and enough resources allocated to their development.
Please, I beg of you, don't ruin the Yukon by saying yes to hydraulic fracturing, anywhere in the Yukon, when we know we have alternatives.

●  Sabo, Angela (Jan 30, 2014)

Hereby I am asking you as a long time Yukon resident and physicist to consider this paper and discuss it in your group.

I care for our water and the water for my children and grandchildren. Therefore I took two weeks unpaid time to study hydraulic fracturing, and it took me this time to realize that there is much more to understand and study.

I am submitting this to you, and trust that you will read and hopefully discuss it. If you have questions or need explanations, I am more than willing to do so. At the end of the paper you will see graphs I copied from a 'Cheesepeake' power point presentation.  Cheesepeake's studies underline my concerns as physicist.
Your truly
A. Sabo
Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing on Water, Wildlife and Ecosystems

●  Nesbitt-Dufort, Jenny (Jan 28, 2014)

I would like to see an unequivocal ban on fracking for the entire Yukon, as in France, Germany, Bulgaria.

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Jan 27, 2014)

Hi Select Committee,
I hope you will soon, announce the public meeting in Whitehorse where Yukoners can comment openly and discuss the issue of fracking.

Here is, down below, a link from M. Will Koop that, unfortunately 2 of your members missed while he was in the Yukon Jan-12 to 18th. Never too late to catch up.

Presentation by Will Koop, B.C. Tap Water Alliance Coordinator,
7p.m., January 15, 2014 Whitehorse, Yukon
Don't Frack The Yukon Tour (64 minutes)
Thank you and have a Good Day. Jacqueline Vigneux

●  Hegsted, Eric (Jan 27, 2014)

The debate about oil and gas exploration in the Yukon has been heated and divisive, but I think there are two things everyone can agree on.
The oil and gas underground are not going anywhere and whatever their value in the market today, they will be worth much more in the future.

There are thousands of uses for petroleum products but at present, for the most part, we use these resources in the coarsest possible way:
we burn them up.  We extract them carelessly and wastefully and, because they are still so cheap, we use them in the same way.

If we leave the Yukon's oil and gas where they are now, in a hundred years we will have safer and more efficient methods of extraction, a better understanding of the true value of petroleum resources and, maybe, a different appreciation of undeveloped landscapes.

●  Macaire, Anne (Jan 20, 2014)

I believe the development of the oil and gas industry and its method of extraction through” fracking”, impacts the future of the Yukon more than any issue we have encountered in the 42 years I have lived here. I feel we are at a turning point that could put our land and its future in serious jeopardy.  Considering the immensity of the resources required for extracting LNG: the water, sand and the vast areas of land that are deforested in the process and considering the ensuing  contamination of these resources, the environmental consequences are extreme. 

I am deeply concerned about the dishonesty of the oil and gas industry’s representatives in regard to reporting about the contamination of the water used in the fracking process. Misrepresenting the facts in order to increase production and profit is nothing new among large corporate organizations (consider the tobacco industry). It is imperative that the ''Select Committee Regarding the Risks and Benefits of Fracking'' investigate well beyond the platform of people in industry who have a huge vested interest in succeeding and the money to promote that interest.

 This past week on January 16  the New York Times headlined a United Nations report that said “governments of the world were still spending far more money to subsidize fossil fuels than to accelerate the shift to cleaner energy, thus encouraging continued investment in projects that pose a long-term climate risk…. Nations have so dragged their feet in battling climate change that the situation has grown critical and the risk of severe economic disruption is rising.  Another 15 years of failure to limit carbon emissions could make the problem virtually impossible to solve with current technologies.”

 The greenhouse gas emissions associated with burning natural gas are comparable to diesel, but when upstream greenhouse gas emissions are also accounted for (from extraction, processing, liquefaction and transportation), LNG is much worse than diesel.  (from Yukoners Concerned about Oil & Gas)

Will we allow an industry that places little value on people’s spiritual connection to their land, and on the health and welfare of communities, to shape our future?  And how do we see our future?  Do we continue to be a part of the problem or move toward a visionary solution?  Supporting oil and gas development in the Yukon is a step backward.  It is my hope that this committee will vote ”no” to fracking - this is the turning point – taking the first step to building a sustainable, clean, energy program for future generations, a legacy we can be proud of.

I would like to thank the committee for the time and energy you are putting toward this critical issue and for taking my thoughts and feelings about it into consideration.
 Sincerely, Anne Macaire

●  Desmarais, Claire (Jan 19, 2014)

I would like to see the committee recommend putting a moratorium on any fracking in the Yukon until it can be proven that it will not adversely affect any of our water or soil. Enough areas around the world are not allowing this practice and we should join them. Once we pollute, we can’t go back, and our Yukon is too precious to ruin, any part of it, even those areas that we can’t easily see.

I would like to see all the money that is going into studying and subsidizing the oil and gas industry go into studying and supporting alternatives form of energy. In fact, the studying has been done, let’s just do it!

Respectfully submitted, Claire Desmarais, Annie Lake Road Resident

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Dec 29, 2013)

Hello Select Committee,

In my last message to you, I forgot to include this link about the regulators, so you will believe me.
75 Alberta environment regulators now paid by oil industry

By the way, I thought I' could share the following link:  Video of Fracking Site Visited by Student Group, via WV Host Farms - because it is what you will permit or not in the Yukon.
(Please, look at the pollution, these trucks and compressors run 24hrs/day for days and weeks....) and that is not the GHG that the methane produces for years, even after they are capped and it becomes government's responsibility. They might not tell you that in your visit in Alberta.

Have you checked in  Yukon's law how far a rig is allowed from a school or any residence? 
Thank you. Happy New Year 2014, Jacqueline Vigneux

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Dec 28, 2013)

Happy New Year to each member of the Select Committee regarding the risks and benefits of fracking,

Yukon has been a nice place to live, so far. You have in your hand the power to make it better, as if you say no to fracking, it will open the door to renewables.

It is my duty to inform you of the bigger picture surrounding shale gas extraction because  you have very big land to protect from an industry that will only make money the first year and that will leave wells leaking methane for the next generations who will have to pay for.

These following links are yours to view and please, as Yukonner who have a grave decision to take, take time to watch it.

Also, can I first suggest that you invite Deborah Rogers to do a presentation to the legislative Assembly, she talks about the economics of shale gas. (as an example at min 23:00 road damage that surpass the revenues) - Deborah Rogers "Shales: The Drilling Treadmill"

Here is a recent study:  ''Fracking by the numbers''  (This is what will happens if you open the door to fracking)

''And here is a community presentation given in the UK.  It is long but there are enough excellent points spread throughout that it is well worth watching! If you get into some of the less interesting parts, please persevere because you'll soon get back into the attention grabbing sections.    There are some good animations re frak process, i.e. intervals, and how cementing proceeds, lots of mention about problems and protests in England and Australia, the industry PR campaign, the dismissal of frack protesters, and examples of how gov't and industry have colluded in the past with respect to things like electric cars and how one of gov't's biggest revenue streams is thru gas/oil taxes (like the gas tax we pay at the pump) - of course another huge factor (probably as big/bigger than royalties) in gov't not wanting to get away from fossil fuel. And it raises suspicion about the real reason some G&O companies and perhaps gov'ts are dabbling in renewables - not to develop them but to be able to spot the ones that are worth buying up and making them disappear - like the water, i.e. hydrogen, fuel cell.''
Ian R Crane - FRACKtured Future: The Fracking Nightmare
The big picture needs Yukon to avoid fossil fuel

Thanks for your time, and please, don't let your tour in Alberta  fowl you with ''best practices and  regulation in the world'' because the Oil and Gas  regulators work for the industry.

Sincerely, my wish for the New Year is that you, as Yukoners, can understand the content of this message and invite more unbiased information into your decision process, and Pembina institute unfortunately  is not part of the unbiased.
May the Blessings Be. Happy New Year, Jacqueline Vigneux

●  Peter, Jeffrey (Nov 28, 2013)


I would like to submit a scientific article for the consideration of the committee.  The authors of the article found that the practices employed by oil and gas companies in the 1970's and 1980's were insufficient at containing contaminants due to the melting of permafrost in the Mackenzie Delta.  I'm sure industrial practices have improved since then but this study shows that even the best practices of the day were not good enough to stand the test of time in a changing climate.  It has been 30-40 years since the exploration in that area and we are only now seeing evidence of the contamination.  Who is left to clean it up at that point?  Can it be remediated?  How do we know our regulations are strong enough or have enough foresight put into them to withstand climatic changes such as melting permafrost?  We can't be sure that this won't happen in the Yukon.  Is it worth the risk?

Thank you for your consideration, Jeffrey Peter

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Nov 23, 2013)

Hello Members of the Select Committee on Fracking, and Mr. Sumanik,

You will find down below, links of consequences  of the new oil & gas exploration and development that is happening elsewhere that I want to share with you.

These places have risked development in shale and are living with the consequences. 

The first link is not even fracking but seismic activities that happened in Canada.

I am concerned about the Dempster Highway who is going to be perced with 70,000 holes during the 3D sceismic activities.   It will be quite hard to keep track or even regulate it.  When the mess is done, it is too late, as in the video. We know they are starting this winter, also, at this point, soon, you will have the power to say NO FRACKING.  Hopefully that will stop their 3d seismic testing because, shale gas\oil will have to be obtain by fracking (stimulation or jet perforation...experimentation).

The other links are just few of hundreds that could be sent to your committee to give you the other side of what your TOUR to the industry is going to present to you later in 2014.

If I had money, I would pay you a trip to visit  jessica Ernst in Rosebud Alberta, the scientist who gave a talk in Whitehorse (September 2012) saying that '' fracking cannot be regulated''.  She has been living without access to her water (too explosive) for years because of fracking. 

I don't want to be too emotional but I sincerely believe that your wives or your mom or your-selves should not have to carry big tanks of water because of a decision to permit fracking in the Yukon, also, please, put it in your agenda of thoughts that oil & gas industry harm people and animals and plants, where ever they go, they all have the best regulations in the world.

Since Jessica's visit in the Yukon (Sept. 2012), they re-fracked twice around her farm and she filmed the workers spreading frack fluid in the neighbors fields. I have attached a photo of ''an approuved location'' of what they did near her property Alberta ( If you want, I get get you the whole film.) An approved location for frack waste

Yukon has the same regulations than ERBC Alberta when it comes to waste water management?  Am I right Mr. Sumanik?  Also, I am concerned.

I also invite you to go to this site for more information on the Ernst clause:

She worked for the oil industry for over 25 years and knows them well.

Also, if I had money I would pay  you  a visit Dr. Gary Tresidder who said yes to oil & gas and now he is speaking out:

Fracking in Alberta: Dr. Gary Tresidder -

To give a brief answer to the question
1.     What evidence exists, that moose or other animals have been negatively impacted by fracking? here are just 2 links as appetizer: Fracking fluid linked to fish die-off  
7,500 songbirds killed at Canaport gas plant in Saint John  

Here is one example of O&G Cie honesty - Fracking companies block data on health effects by sealing lawsuit settlements

Here is something I am also very  concerned: Confirmed: Fracking practices to blame for Ohio earthquakes

In the context of global warming, Yukon should be more advance in its way of thinking and not invest in fossil fuel,  I do not want to see fracking in the Yukon even if it is out of sight.
There are other ways to produce energy without ruinning the planet.
I do hope more than the half of the Committee will  say no to fracking, so, we will have a future for our children, not just money for a few. 

Thank you very much to look at my concerns.
Have a Good Day. Sincerely, Jacqueline Vigneux
c.c.: Ron Sumanik Director of Operation Oil & Gas Yukon Government.

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Oct 28, 2013)

Please, as a Committee who will take decision about fracking, I believe it could be helpful for you to watch & read  those recent  following  links I just found on internet because it tells what happens elsewhere fracking is happenning.

Please, note that animals are dying in Australia video 101: Risky business which I don't believe it will be different up in Eagle Plain with the Cariboos or else where in the Yukon.

Thank you and have a Good Day. Jacqueline Vigneux

Hudson’s Hope and the future of fracking
No compensation for gas users affected by LNG price spike
Truck with 8K Gallons of Oil Explodes Off SoCal Freeway
Dangerous Levels of Radioactivity Near Fracking Waste Sites
Commentary: Liquefied gas plan offers peril to state
Romanian farmers choose subsistence over shale gas
101: Risky Business 

●  barrington, Geof (Oct 16, 2013)

to the select committee.
i believe that everyone on the committee should ,if they havent already, view the movie FrackNation. i found this an excellant documentary on fracking and it should not be ignored . also i suggest that people on this committee should read the weekly newletter put out by friends of science(FOS) . this weekly has refers to fracking sometimes and has certain contrarian views that are quite entertaining .
thankyou ,
geof barrington

●  Vigneux, Jacqueline (Oct 14, 2013)

You will find, attached, my comment to the environment act changes with a link concerning the Oil & Gas industry.
My comments to the changes of the Environment Act

Thank you very much for your time.
I hope you understand my Frenglish.
Jacqueline Vigneux

For a little fresh air, hope, here is a link: Mark Jacobson interview on David Letterman - October 9, 2013