Dear Margo and Dr. Wheeler,
I’ve decided, after some thought, not to submit an extensive critique to the second discussion paper, Petroleum Operations, Costs and Opportunities in Nova Scotia. Frankly, I am too dispirited.
I've been a strong supporter of the Review Panel, even arguing in its defenseagainst those who criticize it. Ifilled inyour survey, saying I had complete trust in the work of the panel. After the release of the second paper I honestly felt profoundly disappointed-- evendisillusioned --and sadly no longer have the same level of trust.
When it was announced last December that Mr. Gardner of the noted economic consultancy firm Gardner Pinfold had been appointed as technical advisor to this Review, I was optimistic. His mandate, outlined on the press release, was to “provide an economic analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing risks and benefits in Nova Scotia.” This he has not done.
A thorough economic analysis of risks and benefits would be central to any recommendations about whether to proceed with hydraulic fracturing in the province. Unfortunately the discussion paper issued under Mr. Gardner’s lead authorship does not even come close to fulfilling the taskhe chose to accept. I appreciate Dr. Wheeler’s introductory comments to the paper, assuring readers that more analysis will be forthcoming, but am not convinced this will create the thorough, clear, integratedand comprehensive economic analysis that is needed.
At present what we have is an estimate of jobs and revenues, based on “various industry sources” (p. 12) which remain unnamed, uncited. Further on in the paper, but buried in another section, we are cautioned that such optimistic projections “are not always as objective or thorough as we would like them to be”, presumably referring to the findings of Kinnaman (2011).
Mr. Gardner’s analysis, quoted by a reporterin the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, suggests hydraulic fracturing could contribute an ongoing $10 million annually to the Nova Scotia economy. This sounds impressive at first blush, until one compares it with other sectors such as agriculture with $420 million farm-gate revenues, 9000 direct and 5000 indirect jobs ( and tourismat $1.3 billion annually, 33,000 jobs ( The estimated economic benefits from hydraulic fracturing for unconventional gas are a pittance in comparison with these sectors, which the literature suggests could be negatively impacted by an unconventional gas industry.
Briefly referring to risks, Mr. Gardner has said “Quantifying any possible costs that could arise from these risk factors is impossible” at the present time (p. 14). In this paper, risks are downplayed to "risk factors" and then to"concerns". Risks are also noticeably absent from the Industry Perspective sections of the paper: are risks not of interest to industry? That's problematic.
From this one can see that the paper actually projects very modest economic benefits, and presently unquantifiable risks. The overall impression it creates in the public mind, however, seems to be different: jobs and prosperity, with someminor concerns that can be managed.
The paper is seriously flawed in presenting extraneous information, failing to cite sources, and lack of balance. Given the qualifications and terms of reference of its lead author, the quality of the paper is seriously inadequate.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Susan E. Adams
Antigonish, NS