Campaign promises, executive actions and vague intentions are not good enough.

Date: March 7, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Press Releases

PRESS RELEASE

New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance calls for a ten-year, legislated and unconditional moratorium on shale gas and oil activities.

MONCTON, NB (March 6, 2014)  – Today, the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) announced its position on a shale gas moratorium – the minimum standard to which the Alliance will hold political parties in this year’s September 22 provincial election.

“We are calling for a ten-year, legislated and unconditional moratorium on all unconventional oil and gas exploration and production in New Brunswick,” said NBASGA spokesperson Jim Emberger. “During that period, all existing leases must be cancelled and no new leases granted.”

The moratorium must be enacted by binding legislation, because “campaign promises, executive actions and vague intentions are not good enough.”

A ten-year moratorium, rather than a ban, recognizes that there may still be New Brunswickers who have doubts about shale gas, but who are not yet convinced that an absolute ban is warranted.

“NBASGA is confident that after ten years, shale gas will be permanently banned as a result of what is learned during the moratorium,” he said, adding that, ‘we use shale gas as shorthand for unconventional oil and gas.”

NBASGA rejects any notion that we should rely on two future reports from Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

“These reports are far too narrow in scope,” Emberger noted. The EPA focuses solely “on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources” and says its report intentionally does not study the effects of shale gas on air pollution, public safety, specific health problems, ecological effects, seismic risks, etc.  The Environment Canada report is likely to be useful only as a means to identify areas for study. The creditability of both agencies has been damaged by gross interference by politicians and the industry.

Ten years is the minimum time necessary to do the required long-term scientific studies on all the aspects of shale gas, many of which remain unstudied. Every day, newly-discovered problems arise that merit research.

Emberger said, “The only existing long-term public health study of shale gas, which spanned only three years, revealed substantially increased risks for cancer and diseases, some of which may take years to develop. Recent studies focusing on specific factors indicate that living near shale gas wells increases instances of low birth weight babies, poor infant health, congenital heart defects, and exposure to endocrine disruptors.”

All these studies have identified health problems occurring at distances well beyond all regulatory setbacks from gas and oil wells, and indicate that air pollution may be a more serious health threat than the water contamination that has caused so much concern.  Emberger noted that, “All the studies call for more research, and there are no studies suggesting the industry is safe.”

History is littered with instances where the lack of sufficient testing has resulted in tragedy.

Examples of how the premature use of chemicals has cost countless lives and left lasting environmental damage include: asbestos, lead, mercury, radium, DDT, and a host of industrial chemicals such as PCB’s, CFC’s and dioxins. Many of the 650 fracking chemicals are known toxins and carcinogens, but many more have never been tested for health hazards.

We are not the only ones voicing serious concerns.

“Traditional oil patch cities in Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania are now calling for moratoriums or bans on shale gas. Wouldn’t it be prudent to take the time to find out why?” Emberger asked.

Our international obligations to stop catastrophic climate change will require us to forego new fossil fuels and switch to alternative clean energy.

In conclusion, Emberger said, “The good news is that the clean energies are, by far, the fastest growing sectors of the energy industry, and they create huge numbers of jobs. Following that path for ten years should be the proper responsible and moral role for our government.”

About the NBASGA

The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance represents the interests of New Brunswickers opposed to unconventional gas and oil exploration and development, while promoting a future in clean energy alternatives.

Website: www.noshalegasnb.ca
Email: shaleinfo.nb@gmail.com

###

The Case for a 10-year, Legislated, Unconditional Moratorium on Shale Gas

Date: March 7, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Fracking & Health, Moratoria, Most Asked Questions, NBASGA

Today the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) announces its position on the issue of a shale gas moratorium.  It is the minimum standard to which we will hold our political parties.

We call for a ten (10) year, legislated and unconditional moratorium on all unconventional oil and gas exploration and production in New Brunswick.

During that period all existing leases must be suspended and no new leases granted.
(For brevity, we will use the term shale gas to mean unconventional oil and gas.)

A “legislated” moratorium means that it must be embodied in binding legislation. Campaign promises, executive actions or party platforms are not sufficient.

“Unconditional” means just that.  This issue is multifaceted and complex and the research is just now developing.  There are no conditions or reports that can in any way make a definitive statement that this factor or that will make it okay to proceed. The list of potential harms is too big to address and is growing. Research continues to encounter problems no one envisioned.  How can you create conditions for things you don’t know yet?

Calling for a ten-year moratorium, rather than a ban, simply reflects the fact that there may still be New Brunswickers who have many doubts about shale gas, but who are not yet convinced that an absolute ban is warranted.

As evidence and research continues to build a case against shale gas, our membership expects that at the end of ten years shale gas will be permanently banned as a result of what we will learn during the moratorium.

There has been discussion about relying on two reports from Environment Canada and the US EPA.  These reports suffer from several problems. Primarily they will be narrow in scope or won’t include the latest research.

The EPA report is focused solely, and I quote, “on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources.  Areas that fall outside of this study’s scope include, for instance: air impacts, ecological effects, seismic risks, specific health impacts, public safety, and occupational risks”.  The Environment Canada report is likely to be of even less use, except as a way to identify areas that need study.

We also regret to say that both of these once-reliable agencies appear to have become tainted by political influence.

In the last year the US EPA has withdrawn from three investigations of contamination caused by shale gas activities, before publicizing its findings.  Its preliminary findings in all three cases indicated that contamination had occurred, but it closed down the cases before publication due to pressure from petroleum-state senators and the White House. Incredibly, in one case it was forced to turn over the investigation to the very company accused of causing the contamination.

However, the findings of contamination became public knowledge from other sources.  In Pennsylvania, it was leaked documents.  In Texas, it was a consulting independent scientist. In Wyoming, the EPA scientists simply made a statement that they stood by their preliminary findings of contamination. In light of these extraordinary examples of political manipulation, the reliability and impartiality of any report from the EPA on the subject must be met with great skepticism.

In Canada the political manipulation is even more blatant.  The Harper government has ceded all environmental regulation of fossil fuels to the provinces, fired thousands of scientists and regulators, and closed environmental research and review institutions.  Most astoundingly, the scientists that remain are not allowed to talk to the press or the public without being cleared by a political handler.  What faith can we have in a report controlled by a government and party that seem to be doing everything they can to silence the voice of science, especially when it applies to the fossil fuel industry?

Ten years is the minimum amount of time necessary to do the long-term studies on all aspects of shale gas that are currently lacking, particularly on public health, as has been made abundantly clear in our Chief Medical Officer for Health’s award winning report on the subject, and echoed by health and research communities everywhere.

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because severe health problems have been identified but not thoroughly studied.

From the beginning of the shale gas industry, a little over a decade ago, people near the wells reported unusual and severe symptoms and illness, but it was years before health officials began to connect the maladies to shale gas. So even now, the longest-term public health study, by the University of Colorado, lasted only 3 years. The conclusions of that study indicated that living near a shale gas well resulted in substantial increases in the risks for developing cancer, neurological and respiratory and other diseases.  As cancer and some other diseases may take years to develop, the study called for more research.

That study is now several years old.  Just last week, the same University of Colorado School of Public Health completed a study of all the available research and said,  “Despite broad public concern, no comprehensive population-based studies of the public health effects of UNG (unconventional natural gas) operations exist.  Overall, the current literature suggests that research needs to address these uncertainties before we can reasonably quantify the likelihood of occurrence or magnitude of adverse health effects associated with UNG production in workers and communities.”

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because new health threats keep appearing.

Recent, independent studies have associated living near a shale gas well with low birth weight in infants, poor infant health, congenital heart defects and exposure to endocrine disruptors, substances that in the tiniest quantities can cause a host of developmental, reproductive and other diseases.  These substances, whose dangers have only recently been discovered, are regularly used in the shale gas industry.

Each study indicates a new problem that shows a correlation to shale gas and each calls for more long-term research. Each also indicates problems at greater and greater distances from gas wells, and that air pollution from shale gas activities may be a more serious threat to our health than the water contamination that has been widely discussed to date. And it must be noted that there are no studies concluding that shale gas is safe.

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because history is littered with instances where the lack of sufficient testing has resulted in tragedy.

In our past we have killed and sickened millions and caused irreparable harm to our environment by not doing long-term research before employing things like asbestos, lead, mercury, radium, DDT, and a host of industrial chemicals – PCB’s, CFC’s, and dioxins.

Consider the years of testing necessary to certify a single drug for human use. Yet the chemicals known to be available for use in hydro-fracking number roughly 650, combined in nearly a thousand different products.   While many are already known to have toxic or carcinogenic properties, many have not undergone any testing at all, and virtually none have been tested in combinations with the others. Yet we will be breathing them in 24/7, and ingesting them in our water and food.

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because cities and jurisdictions that host the shale gas industry, even those in traditional oil and gas areas, such as Colorado, Pennsylvania and Texas, are now calling for moratoriums and bans on shale gas activities.

It would be prudent to find out why. Ten years will also allow us to observe the long-term effects on communities that host the shale industry.  Boom-bust social problems are increasingly cited in news reports from those areas, in addition to the health threats noted.

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because we wonder if the industry itself will even persist?

Existing shale plays have hit peak production in 4 or 5 years. Many experts predict that the industry as a whole will have a very short lifespan.  It that where we want to bet our future? Waiting ten years will let us know if they are correct.

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because within 2 years world leaders plan to commit to binding reductions on fossil fuel usage and lower carbon emissions.

Many global institutions and nearly all climate scientists conclude that three quarters of all fossil fuels must stay in the ground to prevent catastrophic, irreversible climate change. Some investment counselors, a growing social movement, and even the president of the World Bank, are saying that divestment of fossil fuels is not only a move toward self-preservation, but also a smart fiscal idea. A ten-year wait will tell the tale.

All the above mean that we will have to switch to alternative clean energies, which fortunately, are by far the fastest growing parts of the energy sector, creating huge numbers of jobs.  Our time should be spent pursuing this sensible future.

Contrary to the Minister of Energy’s comments, delaying this industry is the only sensible thing to do.  Gas is not like a factory that investors can move elsewhere for a better deal.  In the unlikely events that in ten years it can be extracted safely, and the world wants it, investor’s will come here, because the gas will be here.

In the meantime, the citizens of New Brunswick have been loud and clear about not wanting their families to be guinea pigs in return for an uncertain promise of a few temporary jobs.

Eighty municipalities, thirty-three community groups, much of the medical establishment, agricultural and rural associations, religious organizations and a large number of unions, including the largest public and private sector unions in Canada have called for a ban, a ten-year moratorium or a simple halt to the shale gas industry.

It is time that the voices and will of those people are heard by the politicians who claim to represent them.  We intend to track and publicize the positions of every candidate on this issue between now and the election. Candidates, expect to be hearing from your electorate.

 

Health Studies Referenced

“Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources.”, Lisa McKenzie, Ph.D., MPH, University of Colorado School of Public Health, Science of the Total Environment.

Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development † Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, 13001 E. 17th Place, Campus Box B119, Aurora, Colorado 80045, United States  Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, A710 Crabtree Hall, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261, United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP DOI:10.1021/es404621d  Publication Date (Web): February 24, 2014
Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.1306722

Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado. Lisa M. McKenzie,1 Ruixin Guo,2 Roxana Z. Witter,1 David A. Savitz,3 Lee S. Newman,1 and John L. Adgate1,  Colorado School of Public Health and Brown University.

“Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Surface and Ground Water in a Drilling-Dense Region,” Susan Nagel, PhD. Missouri University School of Medicine, Endocrinology

Low Birth Weight Study, Janet Currie of Princeton University, Katherine Meckel of Columbia University, and John Deutch and Michael Greenstone of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

New Brunswickers Calling for a Moratorium

Municipalities

Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick (51 municipalities) These municipalities reaffirmed their position in October 2013, calling once again for a moratorium.
Kent Co. Regional Service Commission (14 municipalities )
Moncton
Hillsborough
Alma
Sackville
Memramcook
Hampton
Minto
Stanley
Bathurst
Sussex Corner
Quispamsis
Port Elgin
Wolastoqiyik First Nations Chiefs and Band Councils of NB and the Maliseet Grand Council (Oct 2013)

Medical Associations

New Brunswick College of Family Physicians with 700 members (April 2012)
Medical Doctors of the Moncton Hospital (June 2012)
Medical Doctors at Georges Dumont Hospital, Moncton (Sept. 2012)
New Brunswick Nurses Union with 6900 members (Dec. 2011)
Medical Staff at Sackville Memorial Hospital (May 2012 and again in May 2013)
New Brunswick Lung Association (Nov 2012)

Unions and Associations

Canadian Union of Public Employees with 30,000 members (April 2012)
NB National Farmers Union with 150 farms as members (March 2012)
Maritime Conference of the United Church of Canada (March 2012 and again in October 2013)
The Federation of Rural New Brunswickers (August 2012)
Public Service Alliance of Canada – Atlantic Region (July 2013)
Really Local Harvest Co-operative – South-east NB (Oct 2013)
KAIROS – Saint John and area chapter (Oct 2013)
Concerned Physicians of Rexton and Richebucto (Oct 2013)
Unifor – Canada’s largest energy union with 300,000 members, called for a national moratorium on fracking on Nov 14, 2013.

Community Groups

Citizens Coalition for Clean Air, Saint John
Concerned Citizens of Penobsquis
Corn Hill Area Residents Association
Conservation Council NB, Fredericton
Conservation Council NB, Moncton
Council of Canadians, Fredericton
Council of Canadians, St. John
Council of Canadians Atlantic Chapter Halifax, NS
Darling Island Fracking Intervention, Darling Island
Elgin Eco Association
Friends of Mount Carleton
Hampton Water First, Hampton
Harvey Action Team, Harvey
Community Forests International (Sackville)
Kent South NO SHALE GAS Kent Sud
Maliseet Grand Council, NB
Memramcook Action
Moncton Anti-Fracking
New Brunswickers Against Fracking
Our Environment, Our Choice, Kent County
Parents Against Everyday Poisons, Memramcook
Penniac Anti-Shale Org.
Petitcodiac Watershed Alliance
Quality of Life, Hampton/Norton
Sierra Club, Atlantic NB
SikniktukMikmaq Rights Coalition NB
Stanley Area Action Group
Sustainable Energy Group, Woodstock
Tantramar Alliance Against Hydro-Fracking, Sackville
Taymouth Community Association
Upper Miramichi Stewardship Alliance, Miramichi
Upper Environment Watch, Kent County
Water and Environmental Protection for Albert County

Anti-shale gas group (NBASGA) calls for 10-year moratorium

Date: March 7, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Community Events, Moratoria, Most Asked Questions, NBASGA, Press Releases

Binding legislation needed, campaign promises not enough, spokesperson says

CBC News  ::  Mar 06, 2014

The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance says 10 years is the minimum time necessary to do the required long-term scientific studies on all the aspects of shale gas.

A group opposed to shale gas development and production in the province is calling on political parties to stand behind a legislated 10-year moratorium.

The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance says 10 years is the minimum time required for the provincial government to review the industry and the impacts on health and the environment.

Meanwhile, it wants all existing leases cancelled and no new leases granted.

“A 10-year moratorium, rather than a ban, recognizes that there may still be New Brunswickers have doubts about shale gas, but who are not yet convinced that an absolute ban is warranted,” the group said in a statement issued on Thursday.

“NBASGA  is confident that after 10 years, shale gas will be permanently banned as a result of what is learned during the moratorium,” said spokesperson Jim Emberger.

But the moratorium must be enacted by binding legislation, he said. “Campaign promises, executive actions and vague intentions are not good enough.”

The group has timed its announcement to line up with this year’s provincial election, said Emberger. He believes the shale gas debate could weigh heavily on how New Brunswickers choose to vote on Sept. 22.

“We want [the political parties] to all take it into consideration when they draw up the party platform because certainly, you know, we’ll be reporting back to the public as much as we can about what each candidate thinks about this. And so it gives them a standard,” he said.

Leaders are speaking up

Date: February 22, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: NBASGA

Letter-to-the-Editor  ::  Telegraph Journal  ::  21 February 2014

Premier Alward recently implored leaders to speak up about shale gas. Here are some who already have. Seventy-seven francophone and anglophone municipalities have spoken up by calling for a halt to shale gas. They join 30 community groups from across the province, and four First Nation governing bodies. Many unions, including CUPE and Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector union, have spoken up, as have farmers’ unions and rural associations.

Our medical associations, unions and hospital staffs were among the first to call for a moratorium, and have been joined by the voices of several religious organizations, such as the Maritime Conference of the United Church of Canada.

These New Brunswick voices echo those of our neighbours in Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New York and Vermont who all have instituted a moratorium of one kind or another. It is only the Al-ward government and a few corporate interests who are pushing shale gas in this part of the world!

The global community, the people of Canada, and citizens of New Brunswick want an energy strategy for the transition from fossil fuels to a sustainable clean energy economy. Research shows that the economic and job creation benefits of clean energy far exceed those of the oil and gas industry. We can reduce the impact of global warming and offer a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.

Many leaders are speaking out. The Premier just isn’t listening.

Roy Ries
Jim Emberger
NEW BRUNSWICK ANTI-SHALE GAS ALLIANCE (NBASGA)

 

Public Inquiry into October 17 Raid

Date: February 17, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Press Releases

New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance Calls for Public Inquiry into October 17 Raid
Group echoes fears of further conflict expressed by Amnesty International open letter to premier

December 10, 2013 (Moncton, NB) – On this, International Human Rights Day, the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) is asking the provincial government for an independent, public inquiry into events surrounding the October 17 RCMP raid on a peaceful shale gas protest camp near Rexton.

IMAGE - March on Route 134 in Rexton of community supporters against shale gas (CBC, October 1, 2013)The group echoes the fears expressed in an Amnesty International letter to Premier David Alward and his cabinet dated, November 1, that unless steps are taken to rebuild the relationship with Indigenous Peoples with respect to resource development, further incidents could occur.

Amnesty International says that this incident “could have been avoided had the province acted in a manner consistent with its obligations to respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples under Canadian and international law.” When the world’s foremost human rights organization expresses concern about human rights issues in New Brunswick, citizens should be concerned as well.

NBSAGA believes the people of New Brunswick have a right to know the reasons behind the sudden escalation in the use of force on October 17.  Today, they sent a letter to the Premier and cabinet, as well as opposition leaders, requesting the inquiry and saying there are many unanswered questions about what transpired at Rexton.

“We would like an independent public inquiry to examine what role this failure to respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples may have played in the events leading up to October 17,” says Jim Emberger, spokesman for NBASGA.  “An independent, impartial inquiry held at arm’s length from government is necessary because the Provincial Government itself played a role in those events.”

Since opposition began, thousands of people have visited peaceful demonstration sites across the province bringing supplies, and financial and moral support without incident. Rexton was no different until the morning of October 17.

woman_Elsi“From what we can see,” notes Emberger, “there was no threat to public safety until police, advancing with drawn guns and accompanied by dogs and snipers in camouflage, attacked unarmed civilians, including women and children, with pepper spray and non-lethal rounds.”

“Use of force must always be a last resort and the scale and nature of the force deployed must be in proportion to the need to protect public safety,” writes Amnesty International.

Among its many other questions, NBASGA asks why police did not first consult with First Nations’ chiefs who were vocal advocates of non-violence as a means of addressing safety concerns without armed force.  Instead, the RCMP arrested Chief Sock and his counselors, thus preventing them from intervening in the situation.  “Arresting a respected chief who has repeatedly stressed the importance of peaceful protest is baffling,” says Emberger.

NBASGA also questions why police continued allowing citizens to enter the site, considering the police themselves claim it was a dangerous situation threatening public safety.

As well, despite a massive police presence, RCMP vehicles were set ablaze with no police intervention and, to date, no arrests of suspects for arson.

The NBASGA and other anti-shale groups have been engaged in peaceful education, discussion and debate for three years and it is their intent to remain that way. They recognize that peaceful protest may include civil disobedience, but never violence, and feel acts of civil disobedience have occurred only because of government refusal to address citizen concerns in any meaningful way.

“The current and continuing threat of violence was initiated by the RCMP/government in the Rexton raid,” says Emberger, “and this violence has drawn the public’s attention away from the important issues, and also from the coverage of recent significant scientific, economic and political reports and events concerning shale gas.”

Therefore, it is in the public’s interest to have an independent investigation of the Rexton event, not only to find ways to diffuse future incidents, but also to allow the public discourse and media coverage to return to the discussion of the topic of shale gas.

Link to Amnesty International Letter

Amnesty International Speaks Out

Date: February 17, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Fracking News

collage3The Nobel Prize winning organization, Amnesty International, has written an open letter to Premier Alward concerning the events at Rexton that took place on October 17, 2014, and the issue of free, prior and informed consent with the people of the First Nations community of Elsipogtog.

They lay the blame for the situation on the government’s failure to follow Canadian and international law on the topic and for the violence resulting from an overwhelming police response.

 

Open Letter concerning anti-fracking protests at the Elsipogtog Mi’kmaq Nation

David Alward, Premier of New Brunswick
Centennial Building
P.O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1

Dear Premier Alward:

Our organizations are deeply concerned by the Province of New Brunswick’s response to anti-fracking protests at the Elsipogtog Mi’kmaq Nation. We are appreciative of the efforts of all involved to allow a cooling off period following the violence of October 17. However, it is our view that this clash could have been avoided had the province acted in a manner consistent with its obligations to respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples under Canadian and international law. Furthermore, we are concerned that unless the province adopts an approach consistent with these obligations, further clashes may occur.

In 2007, an Ontario public inquiry into police and government response to Aboriginal protest – the Ipperwash Inquiry – concluded that blockades and occupations are “symptoms” of the long-standing failure of governments in Canada to resolve land and resource disputes in a fair, timely and effective manner. In the Inquiry report, Justice Sidney Linden wrote that blockades and occupations “occur when members of an Aboriginal community believe that governments are not respecting their treaty or Aboriginal rights, and that effective redress through political or legal means is not available.” Justice Linden called for a redoubling of efforts “to build successful, peaceful relations with Aboriginal peoples…so that we can all live together peacefully and productively.”

“It is our view that this clash could have been avoided had the province acted in a manner consistent with its obligations to respect the human rights of Indigenous peoples under Canadian and international law.”

In this spirit, our organizations highlight four areas where we believe the province of New Brunswick can do more to rebuild just relations with Indigenous Peoples in relation to resource development and the potential for disputes.

First, it is critical to acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples have rights to their lands, territories and resources that predate the creation of the Canadian state. These pre-existing rights are affirmed in the Peace and Friendship Treaties, in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as in authoritative international human rights instruments including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada’s failure to protect these rights has been repeatedly condemned by international human rights bodies, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which found that the comprehensive claims processes fall below international standards of justice. Your government can make a meaningful contribution by communicating clearly that these rights exist and must be respected.

Second, the inherent land rights of Aboriginal peoples cannot be ignored in the day-to-day operations of the government. Doing so is both discriminatory and contrary to the rule of law. Canadian courts have set out a mandatory constitutional duty to consult with Indigenous peoples with the goal of identifying and substantially accommodating their concerns, before any decisions are made that could affect these rights. For such consultation to be meaningful, Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and perspective must be part of the determination of whether or not a particular proposal could have a harmful impact on their rights and use of the land. Furthermore, the duty of consultation and accommodation, and the inter-related obligation for governments to deal honourably with Aboriginal peoples, cannot be met if there is a predetermination that projects will go ahead regardless of legitimate concerns raised by the affected communities. Accordingly, our organizations urge your government to retract statements indicating that the province is already committed to shale gas development, regardless of opposition.

rexton_oct 7

Third, whenever a proposed project has the potential for impacts on the cultures, livelihoods, health and well-being of Indigenous peoples, or where questions remain about the extent of the possible impacts, a very high standard of precaution is required to ensure that no further harm is inflicted on Indigenous peoples. Canadian courts have said that the “full consent” of Aboriginal peoples may be required on “very serious” matters. International human rights instruments, and the jurisprudence of international human rights bodies, clearly establish a duty to obtain the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous peoples as a precautionary measure or heightened safeguard for their rights. In fact, just days before violence erupted over the shale oil explorations in New Brunswick, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reminded governments in Canada that FPIC is generally required whenever large scale resource development projects are being considered that could impact the rights of Indigenous peoples. Our organizations call on New Brunswick to acknowledge that shale gas exploration and development on or near the traditional lands of Indigenous peoples is clearly an example where the safeguard of free, prior and informed consent is appropriate and necessary.

Finally, our organizations highlight the need to ensure appropriate police response in the unresolved conflicts over Indigenous lands rights. In all instances, police have a clear responsibility to respect and protect human rights. While police have an obligation to protect public safety and respond to criminal offences, police must also act to respect the right of peaceful protest and assembly and act to protect the lives and safety of those involved in protests. Use of force must always be a last resort and the scale and nature of the force deployed must be in proportion to the need to protect public safety. In the Ipperwash Inquiry report, Justice Linden called on Ontario to adopt a province-wide peacekeeping policy based on these principles to ensure that police response to Aboriginal protest would not be politicized and that risks of violence could be minimized. Our organizations strongly urge all governments in Canada to also publicly endorse and adopt such crucial policies.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Neve, Amnesty International Canada
Contact: cbenjamin@amnesty.ca

Lesley Robertson, Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)
Contact: jennifer@quakerservice.ca

Ed Bianchi, KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives
Contact: ebianchi@kairoscanada.org

Alberta Stories

Date: February 17, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Real Stories

albertavoicesWe hear a lot about Alberta…

As UNB economics professor, Dr. Rod Hill, pointed out in a lengthy examination earlier this year in the Telegraph Journal,  “only 0.1 per cent of Alberta’s natural gas is from shale.”

Likewise, despite calling them ‘world class’, Alberta has few and very weak regulations on shale gas.  For instance, unless regulations have been recently changed, Alberta does not even require testing of nearby water wells before drilling or fracking.

Despite this, we are constantly told that they have no problems.

A recent Alberta website – Alberta Voices – has begun documenting the stories and experiences of Alberta residents affected by a largely unregulated gas and oil industry.  These stories are well-researched and available in print or video format.

No Contamination? Ever?

Date: February 17, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Most Asked Questions, Water Issues

Are you confused by industry claims about the long history of fracking with no contamination?

The article below contains two short videos by experts that explain the confusion – both are under 3 minutes long and were made for the recent moratorium battles in Colorado. These videos feature local and national experts who touch on economics, air pollution, groundwater contamination and renewable energy solutions. The first video features EPA whistleblower Wes Wilson and the second features Cornell scientist Tony Ingraffea.

Check out the entire Colorado article here.

Or, for a more detailed history and explanation of the gas industry’s confusing wordplay:

http://blog.skytruth.org/2013/11/fracking-word-games.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Skytruth+%28SkyTruth%29

License vs Lease

Date: February 17, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Land and Property Rights, Most Asked Questions

Are exploration licenses and production leases of shale gas really separate things?

stanley_aug18Our government says not to worry about seismic testing, because it is only exploration.

NB’s Oil and Gas Act – 26(3), explains how to change from exploration to production:

 A license to search may be converted to a lease in its entirety at the end of the license term, if in the opinion of the Minister, all exploration commitments under the license have been met.  

What this means:  As long as a company spends the required amount during the phase of exploration, it is guaranteed a production lease.  There is no process in between. A license to explore becomes a lease to begin extraction.

 

Resource Link

Find out whether you live within a lease area with this interactive map:  http://geonb.snb.ca/ong/

 

Join the Crowd: Vote for a Moratorium

Date: February 17, 2014
Author: Jim E.
Categories: Moratoria

Hopewell Rocks

Here in New Brunswick, much of the expected shale gas extraction is around our biggest tourist attractions….including our own UNESCO Fundy Biosphere Reserve and the Hopewell Rocks.

But we are not alone in our desire to protect our treasured natural resources from an invasive industry.

Newfoundland has put a moratorium on shale gas exploration into effect, primarily over fears about effects on tourism around Gros Morne Park.
A resolution from the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities supports a province-wide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and calls for a dialogue about the practice of hydrofracking between First Nations, federal, provincial and municipal governments on potential impacts.
In the Prince Edward Island Legislature, on November 26th 2013, the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Environment, Energy and Forestry recommended a Moratorium on High Volume Hydraulic Fracking on PEI.
With existing moratoria in Quebec and New York, New Brunswick is now the only jurisdiction in our region pushing ahead with shale gas development.
Voters in the Colorado cities of Boulder, Fort Collins and Lafayette approved anti-fracking initiatives by wide margins in early November, despite an industrycampaign against the measures that cost at least $875,000.
Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector union (300,000 with 40,000 in the energy sector), called for a Canada-wide moratorium on all new oil and gas fracking. They have raised concerns about safety and environmental risks as well as the lack of
informed consent by First Nations about fracking activities on traditional lands.
Click here for our list of the New Brunswick municipalities and Provincial groups of all kinds that have called for a moratorium.