Police and Natives protest Fracking, New Brunswick

[Argus]

Do you want fracking in your neighbourhood?

Not in mine, but then I don't live in a neighborhood with an 85% unemployment rate in a dirt poor province. I might change my mind if that were the case.

[TimG]

Do you want fracking in your neighbourhood?

Why not? We need energy. Energy extraction requires someones neighborhood to be disturbed. We should have regulations that minimize this impact. But simply saying that we cannot build anything anywhere near anybody is nonsense.

For someone with a collectivist political outlook it is very strange that you stand up for nimby-ism which is basically people claiming that their individual needs are more important than the needs of society.

[GostHacked]

Not sure if this has validity, not like we will get the RCMP to admit anything like this ...

http://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/statement-on-provocateurs-informants-and-the-conflict-in-new-brunswick/

In the aftermath of the RCMP raid on the anti-fracking blockade in New Brunswick, in Mi’kmaq territory, there has emerged a conspiracy theory that the six police vehicles set on fire were the act of police informants acting as agents provocateurs.

In particular, one individual has been identified and publicly labelled a police informant: Harrison Friesen. It has been implied that he, along with one or two others, were responsible for several Molotov cocktails thrown at police lines and the torching of the police vehicles.

We saw similar theories promoted following the Toronto G20 protests in 2010, during which four cop cars were burned in the downtown streets. Conspiracy theorists immediately claimed that the police set their own cars on fire to justify their massive police operation and violent repression of protesters.

Not a single piece of evidence has ever emerged to justify these theories about the G20 protests, and they remain nothing more than speculation.

So, sure there is not a lot of evidence to support this. But we can use the indcident at Montebello Quebec as an example of the police trying to incite violence.

[GostHacked]

Why not? We need energy. Energy extraction requires someones neighborhood to be disturbed. We should have regulations that minimize this impact. But simply saying that we cannot build anything anywhere near anybody is nonsense.

Can I build a nuke plant in your back yard? If not, why not?

[Argus]

Not sure if this has validity, not like we will get the RCMP to admit anything like this ...

http://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/statement-on-provocateurs-informants-and-the-conflict-in-new-brunswick/

So, sure there is not a lot of evidence to support this.

I'm sure what you meant to write was "So, sure there's NO evidence to support this."

Right?

[GostHacked]

I'm sure what you meant to write was "So, sure there's NO evidence to support this."

Right?

Actually not based on NO evidence. Just none at this time, but in light of other protests were we have seen police agent provocateurs cause trouble, that possibility should not be ruled out at this time.

[Argus]

Actually not based on NO evidence. Just none at this time,

:lol:

[TimG]

Can I build a nuke plant in your back yard? If not, why not?

My backyard is in a earthquake and flood zone so I do think it would be a problem. But I have lived in places without those natural hazards and I would have no problems living next to a nuclear facility.

[GostHacked]

:lol:

Don't forget the Montebello Police admitted their role with the agent provocateurs.

Laugh, but don't dismiss it outright.

[gunrutz]

Can I build a nuke plant in your back yard? If not, why not?

My yard isnt big enough, but compared to fracking, which has a very small surface impact and no more subsurface than a normal well, it really isnt a fair comparison, most of the issues with a fracked well come from the well casing, and in that way it is no different than a non fracked well. More than a million wells have been fracked, most wells are now fracked, but yet even the US EPA struggles to provide any evidence of significant problems, just like for any sort of drilling sometimes problems occur, but there is no real evidence of the wdespread horific consequences so often quoted and no doubt copied from the fiction that is gasland. I did enjoy the fact that six nations joined in solidarity with the protestors in NB and protested as well when they have fracked wells on their own property, wells they wanted drilled, no that doesn't mean they can't support people who dont want it, but it has to say someting doesn't it?

[GostHacked]

My yard isnt big enough, but compared to fracking, which has a very small surface impact and no more subsurface than a normal well, it really isnt a fair comparison, most of the issues with a fracked well come from the well casing, and in that way it is no different than a non fracked well. More than a million wells have been fracked, most wells are now fracked, but yet even the US EPA struggles to provide any evidence of significant problems, just like for any sort of drilling sometimes problems occur, but there is no real evidence of the wdespread horific consequences so often quoted and no doubt copied from the fiction that is gasland. I did enjoy the fact that six nations joined in solidarity with the protestors in NB and protested as well when they have fracked wells on their own property, wells they wanted drilled, no that doesn't mean they can't support people who dont want it, but it has to say someting doesn't it?

Fracking has been 100% linked to multiple small quakes in the USA and the UK.

[TimG]

Fracking has been 100% linked to multiple small quakes in the USA and the UK.

Driving a heavy truck on a road has been 100% linked to small quakes. What is your point? Edited October 20, 2013 by TimG

[Smallc]

Do you want fracking in your neighbourhood?

It would do this place good.

[Rue]

Bottom line:

1. people have a right to express dissent as to fracking particularly in their back-yards if it contaminates or destroys or otherwise negatively impacts on their water and environments

2. no own has the right to punch or attack police or be violent when demonstrating, that crosses the line and becomes criminal

3. violence takes away and focuses away from the legitimacy of the dissent being expressed-people who might otherwise be

sympathetic to those concerned against fracking turn on them when they see them become violent

4. I do not believe there is an ounce of proof undercover police initiated the violence

5. I do not doubt RCMP depend on informants within the aboriginal communities or other communities to keep an eye on violent people-these informants for all we know may be simply doing it for personal monetary gain or genuine concern their legitimate concerns are being hijacked by a minority of violent extremists

6. In regards to 5, throwing out conspiracy theories is pointless when you have no proof of them

7. it is a fact aboriginals from outside New Brunswick known for reacting with violence joined the demonstrations and have their own agenda and use the legitimate concerns of the MicMak for their own agenda which is to confront violently the federal government

8. the financial benefits of tapping natural gas will always conflict with environmental concerns and so this is an issue played out all over Canada and while not specific to aboriginals in this case does because it is happening in their back yard

9. it is improbable if natural gas is found any aboriginal is going to benefit from its exploitation-its not how things work in New Brunswick-a small elite usually the Irving Oil Company or McCain's are the only benefactors of profit in that neck of the woods

10. part of negotiating with the aboriginal people could include explaining to them just what benefits would go to their community IF they agreed to fracking-one of the problems is that dialogue has not come about-they were not properly consulted from the get go and there is no indication even if they accepted the risks that go along with fracking it would financially benefit them to justify endangering where they live and its not just aboriginals its other New Brunswickers

11. I would like to see calmer heads prevail and no violence and hope someone can find away to sit and talk-blaming the police for what happened is b.s.

[bleeding heart]

According to news outlets, there have been eight charges laid, comprised of:

Mischief.

Breach of an undertaking to keep the peace.

Unlawful confinement.

Obstruction

Other matters, presumably, must be pending.

Edited October 20, 2013 by bleeding heart

[AlienB]

This is a serious issue.

Is fracking legal in Canada?

Do local municipalities have a say in what is done with their land?

Do natives on reserves?

Hold on, geuss what. I think if a neighbouring municipality was like, hey this is no good for us, it would be a problem.

However the problem is, sure you can sue them after they damage your ground water, but what then?

You have money and lost your local habitat.

Also animals don't know territorial boundaries. How does it effect other aspects of the environment.

Sadly the people that be place money and oil and natural gas.. which canada has more than it uses by far, and instead says to hell with the environment people actually use.

How about a moratorium on development until the resources are needed. Currently canada has too much supply. why are we ruining the environment we actually use?

----------------------

Its the structure, the profit of the few at the cost of the many, is nothing new in Canada.

The moral argument is easy to see. Hopefully the courts can provide enough money to completely rehabilitate the area. Looks profitable until the law suits get brought in.

If only the courts would recognize the actual cost of environmental despoliation on native life in term of lost habitat, reduction of native species, lost agroforestry, lost water quality, air pollution and other intrinsic losses.

They would be paying people to frack instead of making money off it.

If you arn't prepared, rule by force of a corrupt government will take you down.

Why frack now? Is there no other resource more easily extracted to meet demand?

This has already cost the government of Canada millions and millions more in lost developmental and social funding. How much will this company be paying in taxes after all the writedowns on the project? Is that worth the damage?

What then pissed off local natives and totally non secure combustible facilities where there are lots of trees. It is a timebomb waiting to go off potentially. It is bad development. If there was an urgent need for gas and oil, it might make more sense. Sadly there isn't.

There is so much they can let it go off the tracks and blow up. Not enough people to watch it go safely form point A to point B,

Edited October 21, 2013 by AlienB

[scribblet]

This isn't on a reserve it's on crown land which the Natives want to 'claim back', they have a right to protest but not violently. Maybe other people want this as it will provide jobs and help the economy.

tp://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/elsipogtog-chief-issues-eviction-notice-texas-base/19097

NDP calls for an end to violence

http://www.nbndp.ca/node/862

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/releases-communiques/13-10-17-135208-eng.htm

At least 40 people arrested for firearms offences, threats, intimidation and violating a court injunction, Rexton, N.B.

[AlienB]

This isn't on a reserve it's on crown land which the Natives want to 'claim back', they have a right to protest but not violently. Maybe other people want this as it will provide jobs and help the economy.

tp://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/elsipogtog-chief-issues-eviction-notice-texas-base/19097

NDP calls for an end to violence

http://www.nbndp.ca/node/862

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/releases-communiques/13-10-17-135208-eng.htm

At least 40 people arrested for firearms offences, threats, intimidation and violating a court injunction, Rexton, N.B.

Well it makes sense to grant an injunction until the claim is resolved. If people have a claim you don't damage the contested property in the mean time you put it aside, unless there is an emergency. There is no emergency so it should be set aside and the courts should be allowed to resolve the claim.

Also even if it isn't on "native land" (that being micmak territory), if it effects "their land" they should be able to injunct it also especially if it effects their ability to live their life as their anscestors did. (it is legally their hunting grounds -anything that impairs their ability to hunt on that land, including destruction of wildlife habitat is unconstitutional) It should only be allowed if the interest is so high it effects other constitutional concerns, that being risk to life, or essential need. There is no essential need for the development, if there is share it.

When can people defend the constitution legally?

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028599/1100100028600

"In the reciprocal portion of the treaty, the British agreed not to molest the communities' fishing, hunting, planting and 'other lawful activities."

http://csc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1739/index.do

Edited October 21, 2013 by AlienB

[cybercoma]

Breaking News: A judge has ruled against the indefinite injunction that was being enforced by the RCMP. The injunction has been removed.

[Army Guy]

We have seen it in the UK and other areas where fracking has been 100% linked small quake activity. Some reaching in the high 3s. Get many of these things over a large area and you can have a very big potential problem with sudden ground movement.

Fracking also uses a lot of fresh water. TOO much fresh water. This fracking solution has been contaminating water wells and the gas seeping up through the ground after fracking is causing water to ... ignite? (Movie Gasland which I posted some time ago)

There are many reasons these people are protesting this new venture. Fracking is dangerous, makes the ground unstable and contaminates water tables.

Just a question you state that Fraking makes the ground unstable, and contaminates ground water do you have a link, the reason i ask is because the US and Canadian EPA sites state that there tests are un conclusive, that and the fact there are othr sites that say Fraking is not harmful, infact they state there has not been one case of fraking contamination of drinking water due to fraking ...they do say however there has been a case of fraking liquid split at ground level that did result in some local water supply being contaminated..

I watched your Movies gresland, and now confused...

[AlienB]

Just a question you state that Fraking makes the ground unstable, and contaminates ground water do you have a link, the reason i ask is because the US and Canadian EPA sites state that there tests are un conclusive, that and the fact there are othr sites that say Fraking is not harmful, infact they state there has not been one case of fraking contamination of drinking water due to fraking ...they do say however there has been a case of fraking liquid split at ground level that did result in some local water supply being contaminated..

I watched your Movies gresland, and now confused...

It happened in Alberta at a number of sites.

Here is one more recent report in relation to some of the issues. There are numerous examples about problems with uncontrolable leakage.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/10/09/AB-Regulator-Fracking-Suit/

[Argus]

Breaking News: A judge has ruled against the indefinite injunction that was being enforced by the RCMP. The injunction has been removed.

Hardly earth shattering. The injunction was to get out of the way so the company could move its trucks. The trucks have been moved. There's no longer any need for an injunction.

[TimG]

It happened in Alberta at a number of sites.

I doubt it has anything to do with fracking. Enviros love to lie and misrepresent facts.

[AlienB]

I doubt it has anything to do with fracking. Enviros love to lie and misrepresent facts.

http://www.albertasurfacerights.com/articles/?id=1463

", the company reported that 43 per cent of 6,692 offshore wells tested in the Gulf of Mexico by U.S. regulators were found to be leaking"

http://www.ucalgary.ca/wasp/Well%20Integrity%20Analysis.pdf

This goes hand in hand, with "we don't need to protect any waterways"

Edited October 22, 2013 by AlienB

[TimG]

the company reported that 43 per cent of 6,692 offshore wells tested in the Gulf of Mexico by U.S. regulators were found to be leaking

1) Oil leaks naturally from the ground in the gulf of Mexico so a leaking well is not necessarily a big deal.

2) The PDF you linked is about injecting CO2 into old wells and makes no mention of fracking which kind of proves my point about enviros misrepresenting facts.

Fracking is a safe process that has been used for 20+ years. Obviously it must be done right and that requires some government oversight, however, a requirement for government oversight does not justify the kneejerk opposition coming from environmental groups.

Frankly, if the world was just anyone who mindlessly opposes fossil fuel development would not be allowed to use fossil fuels. I am sure the opposition would disappear overnight once the hypocrites actually understood the consequences of their beliefs.

Edited October 22, 2013 by TimG