On Guard for Thee Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 I doubt it has anything to do with fracking. Enviros love to lie and misrepresent facts. So did people just wake up one morning and decide they didn't like fraking, or did it have to do with the fact they were a little concerned that there was methane coming out their kitchen taps? By the way, oil companies love to lie and misrepresent facts as well. I know, I used to work for the biggest one on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 So did people just wake up one morning and decide they didn't like fraking, or did it have to do with the fact they were a little concerned that there was methane coming out their kitchen taps? By the way, oil companies love to lie and misrepresent facts as well. I know, I used to work for the biggest one on the planet. Do you think they ever tried to set their water on fire before fracking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 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... The fracking is said to be 10,000 feet down. And water tables are typically no more than 500 feet deep. So they have not really done any studies. But if they do, then they will set a limit of whatever it is you are drinking. Enjoy. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204026804577098112387490158 • The pollution detected by the EPA and alleged to be linked to fracking was found in deep-water "monitoring wells"—not the shallower drinking wells. It's far from certain that pollution in these deeper wells caused the pollution in drinking wells. The deep-water wells that EPA drilled are located near a natural gas reservoir. Encana Corp., which owns more than 100 wells around Pavillion, says it didn't "put the natural gas at the bottom of the EPA's deep monitoring wells. Nature did." • To the extent that drilling chemicals have been detected in monitoring wells, the EPA admits this may result from "legacy pits," which are old wells that were drilled many years before fracking was employed. The EPA also concedes that the inferior design of Pavillion's old wells allows seepage into the water supply. Safer well construction of the kind normally practiced today might have prevented any contaminants from leaking into the water supply The deposits they want are said to be below the water table. But when you frack, you are cracking and shattering the part where the gas is. The shaft to extract the gas should not allow leakage into the water table when extracting through it. There are thousands of these things all over the world now. Think of the accidents the oil extraction industry has. This fracking industry is young, still time to really mess things up. The fracking fluid is toxic and hazardous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_proppants http://geology.com/energy/hydraulic-fracturing-fluids/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-fracking-water-analysis-idUSBRE96E0ML20130715 (Reuters) - The oil and gas industry is finding that less is more in the push to recycle water used in hydraulic fracturing. Slightly dirty water, it seems, does just as good a job as crystal clear when it comes to making an oil or gas well work. Exploration and production companies are under pressure to reduce the amount of freshwater used in dry areas like Texas and to cut the high costs of hauling millions of barrels of water to oil and gas wells and later to underground disposal wells. I applaud the recycling bit but... still that is a lot of fresh water that is being used. So not just the probability of contaminating the water table, it is draining it at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 This has nothing to do with native rights, it is private land, they are nothing but a armed terrorist camp and should be dealt with as one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 This has nothing to do with native rights, it is private land, they are nothing but a armed terrorist camp and should be dealt with as one.How is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 Do you think they ever tried to set their water on fire before fracking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) Good articles - government's duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal rights - oppositiion of local communities and mayors to fracking edit to add link ... N.B. fracking protests and the fight for aboriginal rights N.B. deaf to local government concerns around shale gas: Edited October 28, 2013 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 Good article - government's duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal rights - oppositiion of local communities and mayors to fracking N.B. deaf to local government concerns around shale gas: Jacee...your article doesn't even mention aboriginal or First Nations. This article is discussing the local governments stance on the issue. Of course if you are still worried about consultation issues then you might want to read the following.... http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/new-brunswick/story/1.2186465 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 This is the point I've been trying to make all along. Anti-fracking in NB isn't just coming from First Nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 This is the point I've been trying to make all along. Anti-fracking in NB isn't just coming from First Nations. I agree, but the numbers are still small, not enough to push back and have the gas/oil companies rethink their strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 This is the point I've been trying to make all along. Anti-fracking in NB isn't just coming from First Nations. The violence seems to be tho... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 The violence seems to be tho... The rest of us are too docile to stand up for ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 The violence seems to be tho... Seems to be coming from the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) Jacee...your article doesn't even mention aboriginal or First Nations. This article is discussing the local governments stance on the issue. Of course if you are still worried about consultation issues then you might want to read the following.... http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/new-brunswick/story/1.2186465 Oops! I guess I lost the link to the article on Aboriginal rights.Here it is: N.B. fracking protests and the fight for aboriginal rights Re your link ... Presenting information to First Nations is not 'consultation' with them. Their concerns have not been addressed. No agreement was negotiated for exploration. This is the kind of 'oldthink' that caused Caledonia: "But we TOLD them what we're doing!" It's obviously not good enough. It's not good enough for the local communities either. This is an issue all across the country, and internationally. reforming-mining-laws-and-policies Edited October 28, 2013 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 No agreement was negotiated for exploration.The 'duty to consult' is a duty to consult. It is not an obligation to 'reach an agreement'. The SCC has made it clear that natives do not have a veto on development projects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) The 'duty to consult' is a duty to consult. It is not an obligation to 'reach an agreement'. The SCC has made it clear that natives do not have a veto on development projects. It's a matter of consultation or confrontation, isn't it?From above link ... ... in general terms, anybody thats going to develop resources in Canada has a legal duty to consult the aboriginal community if that development is on or near their traditional lands. Nobody can bypass that system anymore, he said. Anybody that tries is just wasting their time, wasting a lot of money and getting a lot of people pissed off for no reason at all. Edited October 28, 2013 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 I did not realize how common this fracking thing is, and it seems that maybe the eco freaks have exagerated on this process also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 Seems to be coming from the police. Hmm, not to most people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 It's a matter of consultation or confrontation, isn't it? Or consulting and then confrontation when obstinate natives refuse to give an inch... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 I did not realize how common this fracking thing is, and it seems that maybe the eco freaks have exagerated on this process also. http://www.cbc.ca/news/pipeline-safety-incident-rate-doubled-in-past-decade-1.2251771 Pipelines regulated by the federal government — which include some of the longest lines in the country — have experienced a swell in the number of safety-related incidents over the past decade, documents obtained by CBC News suggest. In recent months, a spate of oil and gas spills both from train derailments and pipelines have raised questions about what mode of transport is the safest. The pipeline industry has touted its record as it seeks support for numerous controversial projects across the continent, including TransCanada’s Keystone XL to the U.S. Gulf Coast and Enbridge’s Northern Gateway to the B.C. coast. interactive-map-spills However, according to figures from a National Energy Board (NEB) data set obtained under access-to-information by CBC, the rate of overall pipeline incidents has doubled since 2000. These are the same people involved in fracking. Good track record, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 Seems to be coming from the police. I'm assuming then that you can provide evidence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 Or consulting and then confrontation when obstinate natives refuse to give an inch... That's just it. Consultation to some seems to mean that it's their way or the highway. The court never said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 That's just it. Consultation to some seems to mean that it's their way or the highway. The court never said that. You can't be swayed by emotion in these things. There's lots of contradictory information, some of it completely unreliable. You study the science, you look at what's happened elsewhere, you set preconditions with requirements for remedial action if damage is done, and then you see where it all leads. Just saying NO is not going to work when it's not your land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 http://www.cbc.ca/news/pipeline-safety-incident-rate-doubled-in-past-decade-1.2251771 These are the same people involved in fracking. Good track record, eh? Were those pipes old, because I understand the new pipeline is alot safer. And what would you want a spill or your town destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 28, 2013 Report Share Posted October 28, 2013 The 'duty to consult' is a duty to consult. It is not an obligation to 'reach an agreement'. That's a pretty silly thing to say. It's pretty unethical and against the spirit of the law to consult without ever intending to reach an agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.