If you have managed to slip through the effervescence media about shale gas, in the news from France and Québec, here is a summary of Québec’s situation that I tackle through the reactions of populations, comparing it with the additional subject of oil sands in Alberta (two topics probably well known in Québec but perhaps less abroad). This article was written thanks to combined efforts of Jean-Thomas Bernard, professor of economics at Laval University and Alain Thivierge, Professor of Environment and Geography at Collège François-Xavier Garneau. I would like to thank them both and also welcome my quebecois readership growing as fast as the oil sands are developed...

Shale gas is methane which is contained in the friable rock. Thanks to a big shaft, water is injected into the soil to release the gas, far below the groundwater. The production of shale gas is mostly developed in the United States.

Following the global economic crisis, the price of a barrel of oil dropped from $144 to $35 in one year, while natural gas price fell by half. But then, while oil price rose again (to $90 today), the natural gas price remained low. This low price combined with low cost of facilities (as opposed to wind turbines) and the upward revision of reserves lead to believe that shale gas could gradually grow in North America. Bad news for the canadian wind energy.

Drilling is not massive in Québec yet (10 wells per year). And above all, development of these gases in the province is compromised by people’s opposition coupled with pessimistic scientific reports, which seem too strong for policies to give permission to continue drilling, even though private companies still claim they want to exploit.

There are three environmental problems about water : extraction requires astronomical amounts of water ; 19/31 wells leaked in Québec, which means that there is an existing risk of groundwater contamination when, surfacing, gases accumulate in groundwater ; not only water is injected, but water mixed with 1% of chemicals (1% is huge given the quantity of water). Some of that water is recovered but Québec does not have technology to process them. It is stored in the meantime and what is not recovered contaminate soils.

The fourth environmental issue is the emission of the methane that escapes during mining (methane is 25 times more damaging to the ozone layer than CO²).

In Québec, this shale gas extracted would be used mainly as industrial heating replacing oil, which pollutes more (and whose price increases). But again, Quebecers are expressing their doubts about the usefulness of this gas. Indeed, the province is not short of this gas as they can buy it in large quantities to Alberta who has a surplus. As the price of natural gas has never been that low since 40 years, this would be quite possible if needed, unlike a business which is not really justified.

I will focus less on the problem of oil sands. To understand the extent of the ecological disaster that the extraction of oil is causing (razed forests, massive use of water, pollution, etc., not to mention the geopolitical issues between Canada and the United States), this report from Québec is very helpful : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1...

To summarize the situation, probably unknown in France as compared to the scale of the damage, oil sands extend over an area bigger than Florida and oil reserves are five times higher than the Saudi Arabia’s, in the boreal forest of northern Alberta.

The Albertins tend to support the exploitation of oil sands in Canada because the income from natural resources are provincial. So people will get a (small) part of the huge revenues from this mining activity.

As a consequence, the oil sands are unpopular in Québec because : they favor one province (already by far the richest in Canada) ; they represent about half of the country’s GHG emissions ; 100% of oil extracted is exported to the U.S. ; the great majority of revenues is not for Albertins but for multinationals coming from all countries, including France (Total).

But if I wanted to treat shale gas and oil sands in the same article it was because it seemed interesting to draw parallels between the reactions of the two populations. One sees the economic benefits, the other seems to have an environmental conscience. Quebecers do not want the management of shale gas in Quebec to be handled similarly to the oil sands in Alberta.

This comparison enables me to conclude by saying that for two weeks now that I have been talking about environment with Quebecers, I start to believe them when they tell me they address environmental issues with a lot more sense than the rest of Canada. Am I naive ? I will answer you after speaking with the people of Vancouver, a city "not as green as the image they want to give", according to some Quebecers ...

See you soon, Be green, Ben