Police and Natives protest Fracking, New Brunswick

[Boges]

Semantics. Problems that arise from fracking operations are indicators of potential risks that have actualized. It's about managing risks.

But similar to how the Lac-Megantic disaster shouldn't make transporting volatile substances banned, nor should improperly sealed wells be an indictment of the process of extracting Natural Gas from Shale rock.

[jacee]

Sounds like a problem with a specific well and not a problem with the process of fracking itself.

A well that never had a problem before fracking? Not.

Should a process that stands to make North America energy independent be banned because there are isolated examples of mis-use?

If it's contaminating water supplies - aquifers, groundwater - YES it should be banned.

I'm sure glad they don't stop drilling for oil world-wide because BP Deep Horizon happened.

I sure hope they slowed down, took more care. Nobody wants those liabilities.

.

[Boges]

If it's contaminating water supplies - aquifers, groundwater - YES it should be banned.

Fracking is widespread in the US yet the examples given for problems are isolated incidents. Whereas it seems fracking has allowed the US to lower their emissions a great deal because Natural Gas is far more cleaner than coal.

So what is the alternative to Natural Gas is fracking is banned, which it wont be? You going to give up using electricity?

[jacee]

But similar to how the Lac-Megantic disaster shouldn't make transporting volatile substances banned, nor should improperly sealed wells be an indictment of the process of extracting Natural Gas from Shale rock.

It's not either/or:

If lousy safety standards and monitoring continue, both should be banned.

Sloppiness, bad practices and bad outcomes may result in banning.

.

[Argus]

So what is the alternative to Natural Gas is fracking is banned, which it wont be? You going to give up using electricity?

Oh, of course not! All these liberal environmental dilettantes like their cars and air conditioning and homeade cappuccinos too much for that! They had a show on the other day at some big environnmental exhibitoin, and the guy asked all the devotees how they got there. Most came by private automobile, of course.

And they'll tell you the alternative is sun and wind power, ignoring the fact they aren't economically feasible.

[Boges]

It's not either/or:

If lousy safety standards and monitoring continue, both should be banned.

Sloppiness, bad practices and bad outcomes may result in banning.

.

Do you have evidence that it has? The county in Pennsylvania that made the Gasland creator a lot of money can only go so far when it comes to fear mongering.

Ontario has replaced it's coal use with not solar or wind but Natural Gas. So yeah it is either or.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

But similar to how the Lac-Megantic disaster shouldn't make transporting volatile substances banned, nor should improperly sealed wells be an indictment of the process of extracting Natural Gas from Shale rock.

It's a consideration that needs to be weighed against the benefits.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Boy has that ever changed.

[jacee]

But similar to how the Lac-Megantic disaster shouldn't make transporting volatile substances banned, nor should improperly sealed wells be an indictment of the process of extracting Natural Gas from Shale rock.

Ok let's try this again:

If they are prone to dismissing disastrous 'mistakes' as part of the business ... those practices should be banned.

.

[Boges]

Ok let's try this again:

If they are prone to dismissing disastrous 'mistakes' as part of the business ... those practices should be banned.

.

So if it ever happens, the process should be banned? Since this thread has been started has there been any new fracking disasters in the US? Edited July 9, 2014 by Boges

[GostHacked]

Sounds like a problem with a specific well and not a problem with the process of fracking itself.

It's a problem with the fracking process as I have seen this kind of thing in Europe, Asia, UK, North America, NZ and Australia, Asia ...... fracking has been linked to small swarming quakes in the UK and the US.

Fracking is widespread in the US yet the examples given for problems are isolated incidents. Whereas it seems fracking has allowed the US to lower their emissions a great deal because Natural Gas is far more cleaner than coal.

What is funny is that the process to produce those sites use fossil fuels. You need the trucks, you need the equipment, you need the manpower, you need to burn a lot of gasoline via trucks to haul all this stuff around. Or you need to burn fossile fules to buils a pipeline.

So no, overall if you factor everything else in, it is no better than coal. I would argue it is much worse.

So what is the alternative to Natural Gas is fracking is banned, which it wont be? You going to give up using electricity?

I thought that is why nuclear energy is hailed as the king? Fukushima change some minds perhaps?

[Boges]

What is funny is that the process to produce those sites use fossil fuels. You need the trucks, you need the equipment, you need the manpower, you need to burn a lot of gasoline via trucks to haul all this stuff around. Or you need to burn fossile fules to buils a pipeline.

So no, overall if you factor everything else in, it is no better than coal. I would argue it is much worse.

You'd have to provide some citation there, that it's actually no better.

Sure the process of actually starting a well is energy intensive but when you consider the all the uses of the Natural Gas it's peanuts. And because they can drill directionally they don't need to open as many wells.

Emissions in the US are down despite continued economic growth, what do you attribute that to?

[GostHacked]

Here you go Boges.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/earthquakes-triggered-by-fracking-wastewater-in-oklahoma-1.2695536

The study shows the likely way in which the pressure can trigger fault lines — which already existed yet were not too active— but researchers need more detail on the liquid injections themselves to absolutely prove the case, Keranen said.

While there are about 8,000 deep injection wells in the region, the amount of water injected at the four wells — named Chambers, Deep Throat, Flower Power and Sweetheart — has more than doubled since the drilling boom started about a decade ago.

From 1976 to 2007, Oklahoma each year averaged about one quake of magnitude 3 or more — strong enough to feel locally but too weak to cause damage. But from 2008 to 2013, the state averaged 44 earthquakes of that size every year. So far this year there have been another 233, Keranen said, getting her earthquake figures from the U.S. Geological Survey database.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/fracking-causes-minor-earthquakes-b-c-regulator-says-1.1209063

The 38 events detected by Natural Resources Canada ranged between magnitudes of 2.2 and 3.8 on the Richter scale. A quake of between 4.0 and 4.9 is considered "light" and may cause a noticeable shaking of indoor items and rattling noises.

Only one of the quakes was felt at the surface by "workers in the bush" on May 19, 2011 and there have been no reports of injury or property damage.

"In undertaking the investigation, the commission notes that more than 8,000 high-volume hydraulic fracturing completions have been performed in northeast British Columbia with no associated anomalous seismicity," the report said.

The report said no quakes were recorded in the area prior to April 2009.

I'll even use the USGS site as some evidence to back up what I am saying.

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/

The number of earthquakes has increased dramatically over the past few years within the central and eastern United States. Nearly 450 earthquakes magnitude 3.0 and larger occurred in the four years from 2010-2013, over 100 per year on average, compared with an average rate of 20 earthquakes per year observed from 1970-2000.

This increase in earthquakes prompts two important questions: Are they natural, or man-made? And what should be done in the future as we address the causes and consequences of these events to reduce associated risks? USGS scientists have been analyzing the changes in the rate of earthquakes as well as the likely causes, and they have some answers.

Contamination of the area.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/

The AP found that Pennsylvania received 398 complaints in 2013 alleging that oil or natural gas drilling polluted or otherwise affected private water wells, compared with 499 in 2012. The Pennsylvania complaints can include allegations of short-term diminished water flow, as well as pollution from stray gas or other substances. More than 100 cases of pollution were confirmed over the past five years.

And I did not even use ONE single 'crazy' site.

Edited July 9, 2014 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

You'd have to provide some citation there, that it's actually no better.

Sure the process of actually starting a well is energy intensive but when you consider the all the uses of the Natural Gas it's peanuts. And because they can drill directionally they don't need to open as many wells.

You may want to look at the concentration of fracking wells at these sites. Some a KM or two from each other.

Emissions in the US are down despite continued economic growth, what do you attribute that to?

What economic growth? Emissions are down maybe because people are having a problem trying to put gas in their cars because they cannot afford it. Emissions may also be down for the fact of off-shoring much of their heavy industries to places like China. That will have an effect that some may not consider.

[Boges]

You may want to look at the concentration of fracking wells at these sites. Some a KM or two from each other.

What economic growth? Emissions are down maybe because people are having a problem trying to put gas in their cars because they cannot afford it. Emissions may also be down for the fact of off-shoring much of their heavy industries to places like China. That will have an effect that some may not consider.

Or because the US is moving away from coal towards Natural Gas. People still need electricity.

Manufacturing in the US has seen a bit of an uptick because the cost of living is somewhat low hasn't it?

[GostHacked]

Or because the US is moving away from coal towards Natural Gas. People still need electricity.

Manufacturing in the US has seen a bit of an uptick because the cost of living is somewhat low hasn't it?

Only because China makes things on the cheap which low income families can afford. Call it the 'Walmart Effect'. And it depends on what sector of manufacturing you are talking about. Automobiles are not being produced in the numbers that they were 20 years ago in the USA. Even Canada has taken a hit there.

[Boges]

Only because China makes things on the cheap which low income families can afford. Call it the 'Walmart Effect'. And it depends on what sector of manufacturing you are talking about. Automobiles are not being produced in the numbers that they were 20 years ago in the USA. Even Canada has taken a hit there.

The cost of living in Canada is high. A lot of the manufacturing jobs lost in Ontario go straight to the US. But that's not relevant at this point.

Natural Gas is the fuel of the future. Renewables aren't at a point where they can provide a base-load . . . yet.

[GostHacked]

I guess we do need all that natural gas in order to extract the stuff from the tar sands. Being a net energy loss process.

[peoples advocate]

Fracking is controversial everywhere. I have grave suspicions about the effect on groundwater myself.

Without much national notice the natives of a reserve in New Brunswick have been blockading a public road near their reserve in protest against a company which wants to explore the possibility of fracking nearby. Note that none of the land in question is theirs, however, they do have legitimate interest in what happens to their ground water.

Aside from blocking the road, and blocading the mining company and it's trucks, this isn't terribly unique, as such protests and activism happens wherever fracking is being considered. The level of intimidation and threats to the company employees in this case seems to be a lot higher, though, including brandishing firearms. And of course, since this protest involves natives we get the now routine native tactic of blocking roads, public or otherwise.

We saw this most particularly in Caledonia, where the McGuinty government displayed a level of rank cowardice in dealing with a variety of illegal behaviour by natives which is largely unparalelled in modern Canadian history.

In New Brunswick, this situation has been going on since early September, and when the RCMP finally responded to court injunctions and moved in there was a lot of violence, largely coming from the natives.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/18/shale-gas-protest-that-turned-violent-in-new-brunswick-spurs-sympathy-protests-across-country/

While I have some sympathy with the concerns involving fracking I have none with violence of this nature, burning police vehicles, throwing molotiv cocktails, assaulting police, nor, for that matter, blocking public roads. IMHO anyone who blocks a road should be immediately arrested, whether there's one of them or a thousand, whether they're natives or blondes. And any sort of violence in resisting that arrest and removal should be met and overcome, regardless of cost. Such is a requirement for living in a civilized society. You cannot have some people brandishing weapons and intimidating people with threats or violence without police intervention (although of course, that is precisely what happened in Caledonia due to Liberal cowardice).

The indignation and outrage of natives that their roadblock was removed simply goes to show what years of political gutlessness and coddling have led to, a situation where natives believe that blocking roads is their absolute right whenever they have a concern, be it about native rights, land rights, or environemntal/mining concerns. They do not, and that should be made clear to them.

-----

The title of this thread has been edited to be more descriptive of the topic. The Natives are Restless again was the old title.

Ch. A.

Call me skeptical but the oil companies are the ones who will benefit from fracking and we know that if they say it is safe then it must be. come on people these are the same mega companies that thought the cost of double hulled vessels was a big waste of money , how did that work out ? oh don't worry they got fines and had to pay for the clean up NOT really they just inflate prices to cover their costs would it not be great if we could all do that.

Rail spills , Pipeline fractures and now again TRUST US IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST . Hey lets all wake up and say sorry the water is the most valuable resource we have and I want it there when my great great grandchildren come along. It is a matter of life and death.

Shock but the water is ours and let the big oil companies spend money to discover a new source because there is no proof it does not harm the water systems and with out proof they should be banned from fracking.

[jbg]

Natural Gas is the fuel of the future. Renewables aren't at a point where they can provide a base-load . . . yet.

Or ever.

I am a strong supporter of fracking. My own state prevents fracking and whines about needing money. Go figure.

[cannuck]

Call me skeptical but the oil companies are the ones who will benefit from fracking and we know that if they say it is safe then it must be. come on people these are the same mega companies that thought the cost of double hulled vessels was a big waste of money , how did that work out ? oh don't worry they got fines and had to pay for the clean up NOT really they just inflate prices to cover their costs would it not be great if we could all do that.

Rail spills , Pipeline fractures and now again TRUST US IT IS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST . Hey lets all wake up and say sorry the water is the most valuable resource we have and I want it there when my great great grandchildren come along. It is a matter of life and death.

Shock but the water is ours and let the big oil companies spend money to discover a new source because there is no proof it does not harm the water systems and with out proof they should be banned from fracking.

When oil companies were complaining about the cost of double hull tankers (around Y2K), oil was selling for $10 = far below the cost of production. It costs a few dollars just to SHIP the stuff, so that was the reason for their resistance. Also, very low percentage of oil spills (far less than 10%) at sea cam from tankers. BUT, of course, a catastrophic failure was a big deal, so double hull it is today.

The beneficiaries of oil and gas development are not just oil companies, but the consumers who depend upon the never ending stream of very cheap petroleum for them to waste at an astonishing rate.

Someone said renewables are not and will never be able to provide base load. Well, let me give you a hint: when the non-renewables run out, renewables will be all that is left to provide that base load. So it would be really stupid not to develop them while we are busy piddling away the finite reserves of petroleum. There are two arguments as to what is needed to become sustainable: one is the incredible level of waste in our ultra-hedonistic lifestyle, and the other is the stupidity of unchecked population growth. Instead we bitch and moan about the cost of getting more crap to waste as if there were no tomorrow.

The same people whining about the risks that are associated with producing the resources they so happily waste will be some of the first to protest if those resources are not available for their pleasure.

[TimG]

Well, let me give you a hint: when the non-renewables run out, renewables will be all that is left to provide that base load.

Nukes based on uranium and thorium will last a long time. By the time they run out we should have some sort of fusion reactor. We will never need wind and solar for baseload (if we did we would be screwed).

one is the incredible level of waste in our ultra-hedonistic lifestyle

What is "waste" for one person is essential for another. Most of what we consume in western countries is essential to keeping the economy productive enough so there is enough excess cash to pay for a generous social welfare system. You cannot cut the former unless you consider the latter to be an optional luxury.

and the other is the stupidity of unchecked population growth.

Yet the countries which consume the most energy have declining populations. Development/energy consumption is the solution to population problems. Edited November 2, 2014 by TimG

[Rocky Road]

http://www.tworowtimes.com/opinions/opinion/wish-white/

Interesting sarcasm here.

[jbg]

http://www.tworowtimes.com/opinions/opinion/wish-white/

Interesting sarcasm here.

Good one.