Minister jumped the gun with shale-gas decision

Martine Ouellet, Quebec’s new natural-resources minister, was quick out of the blocks.

She announced within a day of her swearing-in that the Gentilly-2 nuclear power plant would be scrapped and that there is no future for shale-gas extraction in this province.

In both instances, however, she jumped the gun recklessly.

On Gentilly-2 she made the right call, though she might reasonably have waited until Hydro-Québec delivered its report — as it subsequently did — persuasively demonstrating that the necessary refurbishment of the province’s only nuclear-generating facility would cost more than the effort was worth.

On shale-gas development, however, the advisability of Ouellet’s snap judgment — she said she does not foresee the day when there will be technologies allowing its safe extraction — is highly questionable. If Quebec does impose a permanent moratorium on shalegas exploitation, it could needlessly cut itself off from a promising source of desperately needed revenue and forgo the creation of a host of quality jobs.

Her announcement left in limbo the special committee established by the previous government to conduct a strategic evaluation of the environmental consequences of shale-gas development, to determine whether and how it could proceed safely. As former premier Lucien Bouchard put it in response to the minister’s declaration: “Confusion reigns.”

Environmentalist shale-gas opponents, of whom the minister was one before taking office, might well claim that this is what Bouchard would naturally say, given that he is president of the industry’s lobby, the Quebec Oil and Gas Association. But there is undeniably confusion, not only in the government’s position on the matter, but also among the public in general.

A Léger Marketing poll this summer found that only 17 per cent of respondents viewed shale-gas exploitation favourably — but at the same time, three-quarters admitted that they were inadequately informed on the matter. Just over half were under the mistaken impression that shale-gas tapping proportionally produces more greenhouse gases than any other form of energy production; reliable authorities maintain that even biomass production, beloved of green-energy advocates, produces more.

It is true that shale-gas extraction represents a serious potential environmental hazard. It is done by a process called fracking that involves laterally drilling up to three kilometres into shale formations and pumping in chemically treated water to free the gas from the rock. Critics charge that it risks poisoning groundwater because of the chemicals involved, generating earthquakes by way of the extensive drilling, and fouling the atmosphere from wellhead leaks.

However, reputable studies conducted in the United States, where shale-gas exploitation has resulted in an economic boom, have found that although there are indeed environmental risks to fracking, these can be curtailed through proper technology and stringent procedure.

A 2011 study conducted by the eminent Massachusetts Institute of Technology on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that “the environmental impacts of shale-gas development are challenging, but manageable.” On the whole, independent scientific evaluation predominantly holds that while there have been disturbing instances of groundwater pollution, these have been relatively few and can inevitably be traced to technical glitches that can be avoided by rigorous application of correct procedure.

In comparison to the proven risks, the benefits of shale gas are abundant: well-paid jobs for skilled workers, royalties for government coffers, and a drop in gas prices that will be a boon to unrelated industries. These are things an economically struggling Quebec should not write off without a full evaluation of the possibilities of exploiting this resource.

Another potential downside of renouncing shale gas is that “have” provinces such as British Columbia and Alberta, which have successfully embarked on shale-gas exploitation and that contribute heavily to the federal equalization program from which Quebec benefits inordinately (currently to the tune of $4.5 billion a year), might well and quite legitimately call for cuts to payments to Quebec if it chooses not to develop a significant revenue source.

This could have the effect of generating resentment against the rest of Canada among Quebecers, which would serve the separatist Parti Québécois government’s highest purpose. If indeed this was part of the minister’s calculation in her dismissal of shale gas, it is even more shameful than her pandering to the militant environmental purists.

Premier Pauline Marois only added to the confusion when she said, in response to the blowback against her minister’s statement, that the government is nonetheless keeping an open mind on the matter.

What she should further say is that shalegas development should remain an option until and unless the studies that are underway prove conclusively that it is unsafe — something that is far from the case at present.