Shaping the Future of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Canadian Arctic Through Environmental Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the regulation of energy resource projects on indigenous lands in the Canadian Arctic and the role of environmental impact assessment in these projects, specifically those involving hydraulic fracturing. Taking an environmental point of view, this paper argues that in the absence of specific territorial legislation applying to shale gas development in Nunavut and the onshore portion of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in Northwest Territories the federal regulator, the National Energy Board, has a key role in promoting transparency, public participation, safety and sustainable use of natural resources. As part of its environmental protection responsibilities, the Board, inter alia,ensures that an environmental impact assessment is conducted before any proposed hydraulic fracturing activities commence on indigenous lands, which in some cases include an extensive public consultation. In 2013 the Board adopted rigorous guidelines for all onshore oil and gas projects involving hydraulic fracturing which address many of the concerns raised over shale gas development, including surface and groundwater contamination; impact on air quality; induced seismicity and reluctance of industry to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Although these guidelines are non-binding on the Board, their adoption means that it will be challenging for the operators to obtain anauthorisation from the Board should they fail to conduct an environmental impact assessment. This paper argues that these guidelines exceed the best practices widely adopted by the Canadian shale gas industry. It concludes that because the guidelines address a number of concerns raised by the public they could potentially be used as the minimum standards for hydraulic fracturing operations in other regions outside Arctic Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".