A risk assessment for Sio Silica

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/02/2024 (570 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The Sio Silica Vivian project is more than a government/commercial issue, but is of concern to all citizens of Manitoba, as the consequences of aquifer contamination (one of many risks) could be devastating both currently and, perhaps more importantly, into the future.

As the evaluation of the project continues, I find it difficult to see how a decision can be made without a complete risk assessment of the project, and I have yet to see such an assessment worth evaluating, in spite of the many available reports, analyses and assessments.

The project has been defined in many publications as a process of extracting silica sand from some 60 metres deep in an underground aquifer. They propose doing this by drilling hundreds of wells a year, injecting air into the well and extracting a water/sand slurry, then transporting it for processing and distribution.

A failure in the well system could result in catastrophic contamination of the aquifers from which many people, farms and businesses draw their potable and process water. The proposed Sio extraction method has been reported in many news articles and publications as experimental and unproven.

One of the identified risks is the failure of any seals of the well where it penetrates the separating layers between the aquifers, allowing contamination, and because it is described as an experimental process and thousands of such wells will be drilled, this concerns me deeply.

Risk analysis consists of identifying the risk, and then comparing the likelihood of that risk with the consequences of that risk and drawing some conclusion from the analysis. In the case of Sio, one of the identified risks is contamination or cross-contamination of the aquifers from which much of the south and east of Manitoba gets potable water.

In looking at the likelihood of the risk, all that has been clarified is that the process is experimental, unproven, and the unknown number of projected holes penetrating both aquifers, which is confusing as there are estimates from a few hundred to several thousand to tens of thousands of well holes.

Notwithstanding the quantity of drilled holes, we have no idea how high the risk of failure of the sealing of the shafts at the aquifer barriers may be.

So far as consequences are concerned, the largest is the contamination of both aquifers.

The affected aquifers cover a wide area east of the Red River on the north from Victoria Beach and Lac du Bonnet, then south and east to the Canada-U.S. and Manitoba-Ontario borders, and through the Interlake to The Pas. It is a huge area that could be potentially affected.

Any wells that draw water from this aquifer can be affected from the potential contamination, and that includes private homes, multi-family dwellings, farms, municipalities, fire protection systems, jails, and industrial processes to name a few.

So while we are not sure of the likelihood of this one risk (contamination of the aquifers), we now need to examine the consequences.

If the water from the aquifers is not potable, those wells will need to be modified or replaced with an alternate water source. What is required will be dependent on the contamination and local conditions.

For alternate sources, if we look at the many unusable saline aquifers west of the Red River for example, water is typically trucked in and stored in cisterns at various intervals.

So there is the cost of the cistern, the installation of the cistern, the cost of modifying the internal water distribution system of pipes and pumps, the cost of capping off and sealing any abandoned wells, and the cost of bringing in the new water supply on an ongoing basis.

Now we need to ask the question “where will the replacement potable water come from?”

Since the aquifers could be contaminated, and we don’t know the nature of this contamination, bulk water will either have to be treated to remove the contaminants and then transported to the various end users, or water treatment plants will need to be built with some distribution system, or a new distribution will be needed.

What will be the cost? What will be the future cost? What will that do to the value of real estate, farms or businesses? What will be the future cost of lost new business and recreational services because of the prohibitive cost of potable water?

I myself am a user of this aquifer as the source of pristine water at my residence in St. Clements. I have seen the costs of small extensions to water supply and sewage treatment systems in my immediate area, and I shudder at what my costs might be should the aquifer be contaminated and fear the loss of value to my home. Then there are the considerations of relocating.

A quantitative analysis of the risks and consequences of the Sio Vivian Silica Project must be done, so we know what we are facing in cost and lifestyle impacts should the Sio system fail, and what the likelihood of such a failure really is. So far, I have not seen such an analysis that would facilitate reaching a conclusion for approval or not.

Sio’s commitment to monitor the wells for when (not if) there is a well collapse is of little comfort. When that inevitably happens, then what?

Whether or not there is a project approval is not up to just the Manitoba government and RM of Springfield, but all stakeholders whether municipalities, private citizens, or business owners who directly or indirectly depend on a pristine source of potable water.

As the residents of the RM of Springfield remind us, “water is life” and that no risk is worth talking that might damage our fresh water supply.

Gerald Shuster P.Eng (SM) writes from St. Clements.