Time running out to protect southeastern aquifer

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/09/2021 (1477 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

If there were ever a time to call on the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission to review the veracity of the information contained in an Environment Act Proposal (EAP) for a proponent’s development project, this would be the time to do so.

CanWhite Sands recently submitted an EAP for its proposed extraction activities that only provides information for its first four years of operation, not for the full 24 years it intends to operate its proposed silica sand mine. In addition, the company mentions but fails to include eight important mitigation plans in the EAP it has submitted for review.

The company also states it intends to make alterations to its environment licence in 2025; if these requested alterations are deemed to be minor, the government can simply renew the licence automatically, leaving interested parties with no means of assessing the impacts of the changes in these alteration requests.

If CanWhite Sands receives an environment licence from the province based only on the current information provided, there is a very high probability it will jeopardize the source of drinking water for the entire region. The proposal is to extract silica sand beneath the RM of Springfield and process it at a new facility CanWhite is proposing to build outside Vivian, about 60 kilometres east of Winnipeg.

The consulting firm hired by CanWhite to prepare its EAP has done a stellar job of understating the many serious issues identified that need to be addressed before an environment licence is issued.

In the first four years of operation, the company is projected to drill more than 2,000 extraction wells to suck up 1.3 million tonnes of silica sand from the sandstone aquifer. Extrapolating from its own drilling figures for the first four years, the company could be drilling upwards of 10,000 extraction wells over the 24-year period it will be operating its proposed silica sand mine.

All these extraction wells may lead to a plethora of sink holes developing over time, as the layer of limestone in the carbonate aquifer over top of the cavities created by the extraction wells is not thick enough to be stable. Glacial till overlying the compromised limestone will migrate into the extraction cavities, leaving the carbonate aquifer susceptible to a host of contaminants, such as fecal matter and other harmful bacteria, which are likely to enter the aquifer from rain and snow melt runoff.

It could also lead to the mixing of water between the sandstone and limestone aquifers, which is prohibited under Manitoba law.

Another source of possible contamination will be by the re-injection of excess aerated water, which has been extracted along with the silica sand, back into the sandstone aquifer. Introducing aerated water back into the aquifer will mobilize sulphide in the marcasite that coats the silica sand, in the shale and the pyrite found throughout aquifer in the region.

This will generate arsenic, acid, heavy metals and toxic selenium once the aquifer is re-injected with this aerated water by the company’s unconventional mining method. Its EAP glosses over this issue by stating that the core log samples and sand samples that it took are low in sulphide content, but those samples are corrupted, as the samples used in its submitted hydrogeological study were left exposed to air for far too long to be of any use.

CanWhite mentions that it will be installing an ultraviolet system designed to sterilize the re-injected aerated water to prevent harmful microbes from entering the aquifer. However, the UV system will be ineffective because manganese, iron and particulates in the water will scatter the UV light that is designed to sterilize these harmful microbes.

Another source of potential contamination is via the slurry lines that are to be used to send the extracted silica sand and water from the wells to the processing facility. The company admits that this is potential source for contamination, and states it will mitigate this from happening by daily slurry-line site inspections.

These are but a few of the 17 major issues What the Frack Manitoba has identified in a 20-page, scientific evidence-based document that we have produced, which is not likely to be reviewed by the government of Manitoba’s technical advisory committee because there is simply no legal requirement to do so.

The RM of Springfield has identified enough concerns with this silica sand-mining project that it is now calling on the province to undertake a commission hearing to address its concerns.

There is still time, at this stage of the environmental review process, for interested parties to request that the director of the Environment Approval Branch recommend to Manitoba’s minister of conservation and climate that CanWhite’s current EAP be subject to a Clean Environment Commission panel review process, to address the numerous deficiencies that have been identified.

Don Sullivan is a member of What the Frack Manitoba and is the former North American co-ordinator for the Taiga Rescue Network, a one-time special adviser to the government of Manitoba, a recipient of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee medal and currently a research associate for the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives – Manitoba