Thursday, 22 May 2014

Too Too funny your pals David Alward and Franky Boy McKenna know that once Elvis (aka Chad Peters) started singing the blues on CBC The Warriors drums ain't got a prayer to be heard despite all the protests inspired by Maude Barlow/s Mindles Minions and all Dizzy Lizzy May's David Coon Green Meaney followers N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc

From: Ellen <execdirgen@nbliberal.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 21:58:21 -0300
Subject: Notice/Avis
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

I will be out of the office until Monday, May 26. Should you require
immediate assistance, please contact Dan Murphy at dan.murphy@nbliberal.ca
<mailto:dan.murphy@nbliberal.ca> or 506-453-3950.

Je serai absente du bureau jusqu'au lundi, 26 mai. Pour obtenir d'aide
immédiate, s'il vous plaît contacter Dan Murphy à dan.murphy @ nbliberal.ca
ou 506-453-3950.

Ellen Creighton

https://www.swnnb.ca/contact.html

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/chad-peters-swn-resources-tickets-11347640097

We welcome the opportunity to speak with you. If you have further
questions or require more information please contact:

Chad Peters
New Brunswick
Manager – New Brunswick Exploration
SWN Resources Canada, Inc.
Toll free line: 1-877-SWN-NB23 (1-877-796-6223)
swnnb@swn.com

http://www.capeconsultinggroup.com/about.asp

Chad Peters, Cape Consulting Group's Vice President in New Brunswick
was recently named to the Advisory Board of the New Brunswick Social
Policy


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 21:58:15 -0300
Subject: Too Too funny your pals David Alward and Franky Boy Mckenna
know that once Elvis (aka Chad Peters) started singing the blues on
CBC The Warriors drums ain't got a prayer to be heard despite all the
protests inspired by Maude Barlow/s Mindles Minions and all Dizzy
Lizzy May's David Coon Green Meaney followers N'esy Pas Chucky Leblanc
To: annpohl@xplornet.ca, donbowser@goodgov.ca,
kedgwickriver@gmail.com, upriverwatch <upriverwatch@gmail.com>,
oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, COCMoncton <COCMoncton@gmail.com>,
"Davidc.Coon" <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, madeleine
<madeleine@berrevoets2014.ca>, "mckeen.randy"
<mckeen.randy@gmail.com>, Sheila.Goucher@gnb.ca, Craig.Leonard@gnb.ca,
"david.alward" <david.alward@gnb.ca>, Brian Gallant
<briangallant@nbliberal.ca>, execdirgen <execdirgen@nbliberal.ca>,
pmoist <pmoist@cupe.ca>, "Tom.Mann" <Tom.Mann@gnb.ca>,
Jennifer.Murray@gnb.ca, Stephan.Hamel@gnb.ca, Eilish.Cleary@gnb.ca,
David.Maguire@gnb.ca, Ombudsman@gnb.ca, dmurphy@corridor.ca, pknoll
<pknoll@corridor.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
"justin.trudeau.a1" <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, MulcaT
<MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, td ombudsman <td.ombudsman@td.com>,
"peter.dauphinee" <peter.dauphinee@gmail.com>, "roger.l.brown"
<roger.l.brown@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "John.Williamson"
<John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, "john.warr" <john.warr@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"hugh.flemming" <hugh.flemming@gnb.ca>, henktep <henktep@nbnet.nb.ca>,
hmc <hmc@mediacoop.ca>, highwood <highwood@assembly.ab.ca>, sunrayzulu
<sunrayzulu@shaw.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, Whistleblower
<Whistleblower@ctv.ca>, danny.soucy@gnb.ca, acampbell
<acampbell@ctv.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>,
"jack.carr" <jack.carr@gnb.ca>, "paul.robichaud"
<paul.robichaud@gnb.ca>

Shale gas supporters should speak out, SWN manager says

Chad Peters says public needs to hear from proponents of developing
the industry in New Brunswick

CBC News Posted: May 22, 2014 6:08 PM AT|

A little Deja Vu for you

Moncton East provincial by-election, 2007

A provincial by-election was held in New Brunswick on March 5, 2007 to
fill the vacancy in the Legislative Assembly riding of Moncton
East.[1]

As a result of Bernard Lord's resignation, a by-election had to be
called within six months of January 31, 2007. The date was set for
March 5, 2007. The governing Liberals were hopeful that they could win
the seat as it was held by Liberal Ray Frenette from 1974 to 1998 and
because they are showing strength in recent opinion polls across the
province.

Candidates

The Liberal leader, Premier Shawn Graham, said he would not interfere
in the nomination process, leaving it up to the riding to determine a
candidate but that, as he has only three women in his caucus, he added
that he "will be actively searching for women to run".[2] Of the three
candidates there were two men (Chris Collins, Daniel LeBlanc) and one
woman (Gilberte Losier). Chris Collins, a Moncton city councillor, was
nominated as the Liberal candidate.

Chad Peters, a staffer with the Conservative Party's legislative
office, and a former Elvis impersonator, was nominated on February 10,
2007.[3]

Hélène Lapointe, a former president of the New Brunswick New
Democratic Party, was acclaimed her party's nominee on February 17,
2007.[3]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/shale-gas-supporters-should-speak-out-swn-manager-says-1.2651199


Shale gas supporters should speak out, SWN manager says

Chad Peters says public needs to hear from proponents of developing
the industry in New Brunswick

CBC News Posted: May 22, 2014 6:08 PM AT|

A major player in shale gas exploration in New Brunswick is asking
supporters to speak up.

Chad Peters, the manager of exploration for SWN Resources Canada, made
the appeal at a public luncheon hosted by the Miramichi Chamber of
Commerce on Thursday.

He says the company is open to talking to anyone who wants to have a
respectful conversation, but he believes it's time the public heard
more from shale gas proponents.

"If you believe that this industry can help us move this province's
economy forward, then you need to speak out. You need to say that
those who are speaking loudly in opposition to this industry do not
speak for you," said Peters.

"We should not be forced to be quiet. It's time to stand up and say,
'I want this industry in New Brunswick. I want the opportunity it
brings, I know it can be done safely, as it is in other parts of
Canada, where my neighbour works.'"

SWN Resources Canada has been conducting shale gas exploration work in
New Brunswick, trying to determine whether it's feasible to develop
the industry.

The company plans to drill four exploratory wells in 2015 — two in
Kent County, in Saint-Charles and Galloway, and two in Queens County,
in the vicinity of Bronston Settlement Road and the Pangburn area.


'I think it's a great opportunity for New Brunswick. As long as we do
it responsibly, I think we're going to have a great future here.'

- Hal Raper, Miramichi Lumber

"Until we drill a well, we don't know if there's any hydrocarbons in
the subsurface," said Peters. "This is a wild cat exploration … It's a
one in 10 chance that we'll find what we're looking for. We're just
very hopeful that we do."

Hal Raper, who owns Miramichi Lumber, says he's been on board with the
idea since the beginning, and isn't shy about sharing his opinion.

"I think it's a great opportunity for New Brunswick," he said. "As
long as we do it responsibly, I think we're going to have a great
future here in New Brunswick."

'Could turn the tide'

Area resident Dan Richard says he is thankful SWN Resources is taking
a chance on New Brunswick. He currently travels west for work, but
says he would rather be at home with his wife and children.

"You don't see each other for six months … and it's hard, but to see
something that could turn the tide and bring us all home — we could
live here, work here and do the stuff we love to do as New
Brunswickers here," Richard said.

But not everyone agrees.




The prospect of shale gas development in New Brunswick has sparked
protests right across the province. Opponents say the hydraulic
fracturing process used in exploration can cause water and air
pollution.

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as hydro-fracking, involves injecting
a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the ground, creating
cracks in shale rock formations, thereby allowing companies to extract
natural gas from areas that would otherwise go untapped.

A recent report commissioned by Environment Canada found there's
little information about the effects of shale gas development on the
environment.

The report by a panel of 14 international experts concluded "data
about potential environmental impacts are neither sufficient nor
conclusive."

Seismic testing by SWN in the Kent County area last year was
interrupted by ongoing protests.

On Oct. 17, a protest in Rexton ended in a violent clash between
protesters and RCMP officers. Six RCMP vehicles were set on fire and
dozens of protesters were arrested in an incident that set off a wave
of sympathy protests across the country.

The Alward government is committed to developing the shale gas
industry, while the Opposition Liberals have repeatedly called for a
moratorium.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:10:52 -0300
Subject: BTW Trust that All the Green Meanies know why this stuff by
Ann Pohl and pals really pisses me off
To: annpohl@xplornet.ca, donbowser@goodgov.ca,
kedgwickriver@gmail.com, upriverwatch <upriverwatch@gmail.com>,
oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, COCMoncton <COCMoncton@gmail.com>,
"Davidc.Coon" <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, madeleine
<madeleine@berrevoets2014.ca>, "mckeen.randy"
<mckeen.randy@gmail.com>, Sheila.Goucher@gnb.ca, Craig.Leonard@gnb.ca,
"david.alward" <david.alward@gnb.ca>, Brian Gallant
<briangallant@nbliberal.ca>, execdirgen <execdirgen@nbliberal.ca>,
pmoist <pmoist@cupe.ca>, "Tom.Mann" <Tom.Mann@gnb.ca>,
Jennifer.Murray@gnb.ca, Stephan.Hamel@gnb.ca, Eilish.Cleary@gnb.ca,
David.Maguire@gnb.ca, Ombudsman@gnb.ca, dmurphy@corridor.ca, pknoll
<pknoll@corridor.ca>, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
"justin.trudeau.a1" <justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca>, MulcaT
<MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, td ombudsman <td.ombudsman@td.com>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, Whistleblower
<Whistleblower@ctv.ca>, danny.soucy@gnb.ca, acampbell
<acampbell@ctv.ca>, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>,
"jack.carr" <jack.carr@gnb.ca>, "paul.robichaud"
<paul.robichaud@gnb.ca>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7c4VjtY3-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7c4VjtY3-M


http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2014/03/david-coon-of-green-meanies-roberta.html

http://upriverenvironmentwatch.com/2014/03/12/how-do-we-make-nbs-environmental-impact-assessment-process-effective/

March 5, 2014

Marysville Place, P O Box 6000
Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1
danny.soucy@gnb.ca

Dear Hon. Danny Soucy, Minister of Environment and Local Government:

I am writing to request a Comprehensive Environmental Impact Review on
both current phases of Corridor Resources' McCully Field shale gas
industrial development proposals for Penobsquis NB. Initial
assessments commissioned by Corridor (the proponent) from AMEC (its
own consultant) have been submitted to your Ministry staff:

• McCully Phased Environment Impact Assessment Phases I and II:
Natural Gas Exploration and Development at Well Pad F-67 Submitted to:
Corridor Resources Inc., Halifax Nova Scotia Submitted by: AMEC
Environment & Infrastructure, A Division of AMEC Americas Ltd.,
Fredericton, New Brunswick, October 2013, TE131040

• McCully Phased Environment Impact Assessment Phase III: Natural Gas
Exploration and Development in the McCully Field Submitted to:
Corridor Resources Inc., Halifax Nova Scotia Submitted by: AMEC
Environment & Infrastructure, A Division of AMEC Americas Ltd.,
Fredericton, New Brunswick, February 2014, TE131040

I am very concerned about the incomplete and misleading assessments
prepared AMEC. In my following comments, I address both proposals
together. They really are conjoined, so must be considered together,
and I can see on the Government of New Brunswick (GNB) website that,
as of today's date, the "Determination Review is in progress" for both
proposals. (1)

1 Fracking with Propane

The industry, their investors, and their advocates in the GNB seem
willing to take risks using a technology that has not been subjected
to any scientific analysis on its safety record or environmental
impact. I am not an engineer, however I am trained and certified as a
Propane Pump Attendant. Therefore, I have some idea of propane's
safety risks. It is HIGHLY flammable and even small 20 lb tanks must
be very carefully transported. The LPG (Liquid Propane Gas) beginning
to be used in shale gas fracking is perhaps even more of a fire
hazard: it includes butane and other flammable additives.

One reason GNB seems willing to do this on the quietly, without
discussion is that both the GNB and the shale gas and oil industry can
access the current research. They know that most environmental issues
raised over the past few years are being proven in credible research.
Unconventional hydraulic refracturing (obtaining methane from the deep
shale layers of the planet with gargantuan quantities of deeply
pressurized water laced with chemicals) is very risky because it all
too often emits poisonous matter into adjacent water, air, and land.
(2)

Another BIG problem with hydraulic fracking is the waste of water
(millions of litres per frack), which then becomes "waste water." This
waste water is contaminated by the stuff added to facilitate the
"frack," and further contaminated by other ingredients, often
radioactive, which occurs naturally in the deep shale and comes up to
the surface with the frack water "blow-back." In many jurisdictions
there are HUGE problems with managing storage and treatment for
disposal of this blow-back water, and in New Brunswick there is way to
deal with it.

The only reason anyone would even think of using LPG for fracking
shale gas wells (i.e. to get methane out of the earth's deep shale
layers) is because, unlike the water method, the public does not have
the information about the risks. The people who promote fracking with
LPG are those involved in making money from that activity, or who want
to be. There are no empirical studies, only corporate promotion of its
virtues – which can always be followed by lawyering up and the silence
that protects corporate privilege when something goes wrong. Using
common sense to think about (LPG) as a fracking agent, a number of
serious concerns arise: (3)

• Many truckloads of liquid propane are needed for each frack. Use of
LPG for fracking means HUGE quantities of a truly hazardous substance
is being hauled, loaded and unloaded, to and from well sites, across
New Brunswick roads, risking accidents in residential, agricultural,
tourism, outdoor recreation, and other land use region. Propane is
also stored on site for periods during the active frack process, and
the proponent's site is very close to local residences and operations.

• LPG, like the propane we know in our barbecues, is highly
combustible and presents dangers to on site workers as well as those
who live in and around the Penobsquis area. GasFrac is the Canadian
company that has pioneered this technology. They are partnered with
Chevron and are the propane fracking contractor Corridor intends to
use. At least two significant accidents have occurred at GasFrac
sites. (4) Propane was also a major factor in the huge fire at a
Chevron site in mid-February in southwestern Pennsylvania (5, 6)

• The LPG converts to gas during the fracking process. In its gaseous
state, propane is heavier than air. As a surface fugitive gas, it will
pool in low spots on the industrial site, at which point the fugitive
methane becomes a really significant explosion hazard. Taking a guess,
this may have contributed to the aforementioned fire in Pennsylvania.
• Fracking by LPG still requires unacceptable quantifies of hazardous
chemicals. The proponent says the projects will only use three
additives but these additives have several components, as discussed
further below. As with hydraulic fracking, when these chemicals are on
site, being transferred to and fro and present in blow-back gas or
water, accidents, spills, and fugitive gasses enable migration of
these chemicals into the surrounding air as well as the soil and
groundwater.

• Recovery of the propane, after it returns to the surface as a gas,
requires heavy-duty industrial compression on the site to convert the
gas back into LPG form. This is an hazardous operation that will
contribute to air pollution either on the site or wherever this
recovery facility is located.

• LPG is expensive: the price of propane is climbing daily and the
technology is so "cutting edge" that third party contractors are hired
to do propane fracking while the industry's own in-house experts and
equipment (designed for water-based fracking) stand idle. Because of
the costs, it is entirely possible these wells are initially being
fracked with propane to make them more acceptable to an unwitting
public, and after the proposed development is in place the same wells
could be fracked with the old pressurized water method. This brings on
all the issues of unconventional fracking with water as the fluid.

The above points constitute my first reason for calling on your
government to go beyond the hollow EIA's submitted by the proponent in
these applications. You must forthwith undertake a transparent, open,
full and comprehensive environmental impact study on these new
development proposals.

2 Flood Plain, Watercourse, Wetlands

A basic aerial map of the region shows the Penobsquis area is dotted
with ponds and other small water bodies and streams. The Kennebacasis
River headwaters are in the foothills of Albert County, near the
community of Goshen. The major tributary for this river flows through
Penobsquis, with all tributaries merging a few kilometres south. On
pages 5 and 16 of the February submission, Corridor admits:

• there is only about 20′ or 7m. between this tributary and Well Pads
67 and/or 57;

• the sites covered by these three phases of development are all in a
floodplain.

On December 1, 2011, internationally respected Dr. Anthony Ingraffea
(PhD, Civil Engineering) said point blank to an audience in Hampton,
NB, "I am an engineer and it is just plain foolish to build gas wells
over floodplains." (7, 8) Over-flooding water from storage pits, well
heads and the surrounding industrial area would carry with it toxic
chemicals, contaminated blow-back, and other industrial waste
contamination to adjacent properties and throughout nearby
watercourses. This issue is even more worrisome in view of the
increasingly severe and often freakish weather associated with climate
change. Throughout New Brunswick, there is also reason to be concerned
that there could be radon or other radioactive waste in the post-frack
gas, dust, and fluids from the site.

Surely you do not intend to allow the proponent to expand the existing
non-conforming development when it means encroaching further into
wetlands? Seven years ago (2007), GNB was extremely concerned about
development on this environmentally sensitive site. A stop work order
was issued on Corridor's gas plant in the McCully Field in Penobsquis
precisely because of its proximity to recognized wetlands in this
flood plain. In order to proceed with that 2007 stage and scope of its
shale gas industrial activities, Corridor was required to compensate
this loss to the public. (9) Only a transparent, open, full and
comprehensive environmental impact study will provide full opportunity
for consideration of these issues.

3 Subsidence, Seismicity, Fault Lines

Subsidence has already occurred in the Penobsquis area and it is
recognized as an active subsidence area. On December 1, 2011, again in
Hampton, Dr. Anthony Ingraffea said, "It is asking for trouble to
build wells and pipelines in areas where there has been subsidence,
and where subsidence is still active. You have seen how important
casing and cementing is to wellbore integrity… and if you're moving
rock mass centimetres, or metres" around these casings "you can't
expect that protection system to last." Given the proponent's plans to
experiment with the use of LPG (propane) as the frac fluid, well bore
integrity is especially essential to provide some hope for workplace
and rural neighbourhood safety.

This subsidence became an issue for area residents with the
development of the PotashCorp mine and the initial development of the
McCully Field by the proponent. These two industries and their
activities are inextricably linked in the corporate world and on the
ground in the Penobsquis area (or should I say, below the ground). The
dramatic amount of subsidence in the past decade appears to be due to
three factors: the deep fault lines shown on Lawrence Wuest's map in
Appendix A (having some trouble uploading, please email
upriverwatch@gmail.com to see this), the potash mine hollowing out the
underground and mine infrastructure impacts, and seismicity associated
with the shale gas fracking process. However, the Concerned Citizens
of Penobsquis only had the resources to challenge one of the
industries. At a lengthy public hearing in 2013, PotashCorp agreed
that the subsidence was at least partially due to its mine, although
the company acknowledged no responsibility for damage to local
properties. Corridor Resources was not a party to this hearing.

August 2012 research from the BC Oil and Gas Commission shows there is
a clear link between fracking and seismic activity along fault
lines.(10) With these proposals, the proponent is signalling intent to
ramp up seismicity in the region with new fracks and increasing
development that aims towards commercial levels of production. We know
that deep shale gas extraction needs ever more frequent fracks to keep
producing.

Steps must be developed and implemented to avoid any further
subsidence in this area. Now is the time to stop, take a breath, and
at a minimum establish a baseline as well as a monitoring program that
will protect owners of adjacent properties from continuing to be
collateral damage in this resource rush. This baseline and monitoring
system would enable compensation if their worst fears are realized.
This matter can only be fully investigated and addressed through a
transparent, open, full and comprehensive environmental impact study
in which the public is given any support needed to participate. Let's
get the full story out there and deal with the issues. To fail to do
so would be foolhardy for a government that wishes to avoid litigation
for damages down the road.

4 Chemicals Used

On page 14 (2.2.4.1) of the proponent's October 2013 document, it is
stated that only three chemical additives will be used in the
LBG-based fracturing fluid: a gellant, an activator, and a breaker,
and that these will be used in "small dosages" of 4 to 10 litres per
1000 litres. 4 to 10 litres per 1000 litres is from four parts per
thousand to one part per hundred. Many chemicals can cause serious
harm in only a few parts per million and some in as little as a few
parts per billion, so the proponent's claims that these do not pose a
threat to human and/or environmental health need to be much further
investigated.

In Appendix A of the same proposal document, more than a dozen
chemicals and compounds are identified as part of the three additives
identified as fracking co-agents: Gellant GELLP-10; Activator
XL-46D/XL-105; and Breaker BRKLP-10. Further, on page 9 of the same
(October) proposal document, there is mention of something called
"Synthetic Oil Based Drilling Fluid" that is not described in any more
detail. Elsewhere in these proposals it is mentioned that propane is
only 95% of LPG and other substances are added to it. This information
provided in these proposals is totally inadequate for residents or
those who work and recreate in the area, and by proximity may become
contaminated via any manner (contact, inhale, ingest).

The population of this region, and of New Brunswick in general, has
the right to know what industrial chemicals, gasses and fluids the
company plans to use BEFORE it is put into our land, air, water, and
bodies. The precise known and suspected effects of each additive and
compound should be public knowledge prior to approval, as well as the
concentration of each chemical in parts per million or parts per
billion in the fracking cocktail. These comments apply to all wells to
be fractured as per any fracking operations covered in all current and
future phases of the proponent's development at this site. Further,
use of any chemicals not on the disclosed list should not be permitted
until the same steps are taken. Information like this should be part
of the environmental review process and its absence in the AMEC
documents is one more reason why a transparent, open, full and
comprehensive environmental impact study is needed for these
proposals.

5 Health Impacts

Many of the above referenced and other potential chemicals used to
facilitate the fracking process are hazardous to human health, even in
the smallest quantities. Multiply this threat by the acknowledged fact
that this development is taking place on a flood plain and the wild
weather accompanying increasing climate change is bringing unexpected
floods to all sorts of streams and low lying areas. Multiply again by
the fact that NB regulators and the proponent have no experience with
the use of LPG (itself a hazard) as a fracking fluid. Add on the risks
of subsidence. Already the potential for psychological, financial,
social, health, and emotional misery (even devastation) is HUGE! The
homes, farms, woods, camp, watercourses, and wildlife (etc.) were
there before these industries moved in. Sadly, this list is
incomplete. There are many more risks and hazards.

New Brunswick's Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Eilish Cleary is
the ultimate GNB expert on public health and human environmental
issues related to this form of development. In October 2012, Dr.
Cleary reported on public health issues related to shale gas
industrial development in our province. (11) Her research report Chief
Medical Officer of Health's Recommendations Concerning Shale Gas
Development in New Brunswick won national and international accolades,
including the prestigious Environmental Health Review Award for 2013
from the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors for its
comprehensive "state-of-the-science" overview/examination of public
health issues related to the shale gas industrial development. This
award is presented annually to an individual, organization, or agency
who has made an outstanding contribution to the field of environmental
health and/or the betterment of public health during the previous
year. In a clear snub of Dr. Cleary's peer-acclaimed scientific
research and advocacy, GNB sent no representative to this award
ceremony.

However, Dr, Cleary perseveres. She ignored the snub and, in fact, she
ignores being ignored. Still driving home her message of "do no harm"
through prevention and protection, on February 18, 2014 (two weeks
ago), Dr. Cleary said, "the Alward government needs to take 'targeted
and strategic actions' to prevent and mitigate any negative health
impacts associated with the development of the shale gas industry."
She recommended requiring a health impact assessment and monitoring
the health of the population on an ongoing basis to detect adverse
impacts, including from:

• chemicals used in the fracking process; air quality; noise; and
vibration (12)

• the impact of this development vis-a-vis First Nations Peoples,
climate change considerations, social and psychosocial impacts of the
industry, and the overwhelming evidence that industrial mining of deep
shale layers causes significant and hazardous air pollution. (13)

In the CBC Information Morning interview cited above, Dr. Cleary
further commented, "I think the shale gas conversation has opened up a
whole range of big-picture policy questions that our department needs
to be involved in," and this means looking at the full picture of
risks, costs and benefits of this industrial development here in New
Brunswick. Dr. Cleary continued, "In health, we have already come
forward with recommendations and now what we have to do is focus on
translating those recommendations into operational plans, for example
air quality" monitoring, and "the same applies for doing health impact
and environmental impact studies." To date, your government seems to
be totally ignoring Dr. Cleary's words of wisdom. It is not
inconceivable that this could expose GNB to the risk of a class action
law suit if some of the troubles she identifies occur. To protect all
New Brunswickers, your government must not fail to heed her warnings
and advice.

A week ago, the Conservation Council of New Brunswick (CCNB) called on
the Government of New Brunswick to provide Dr. Cleary with a clear
mandate and adequate resources to do her job of protecting public
health. (14) This mandate would start with an invitation from the
Department of the Environment and Local Government to the Office of
the Medical Officer of Health to become a sitting member of its
standard Technical Review Committee for Environmental Impact (EI)
reviews on shale gas development proposals.

New Brunswick would truly have a world-class regulatory system if the
CMOH's staff is fully integrated into all application and approval
processes. This means spending some of the revenue that New Brunswick
projects from this industry on provisioning her department with
resources to:

• participate fully in all EIA processes;

• undertake baseline Health Impact studies for those regions with
approved projects;

• monitor all shale gas development re: identified public and
environmental health considerations; and,

• establish professional, 24/7/365 inspection capacity to protect
residents and workers.

6 GNB is Dropping the Ball on Environmental Impact Assessment

GNB has been arguing for two years that it can protect the health and
natural environment of New Brunswickers with its: "world-class"
regulatory framework, capable enforcement and inspection civil service
workforce, and a bona fide environmental impact review process. To
date, these seem to be glamourous words with no substance. I see no
evidence of this commitment being honoured.

In my opinion both of the subject proposals are misnamed; they are not
true "Environmental Impact Assessments." To try to understand why they
are named this, and what GNB actually thinks an Environmental Impact
Assessment is, on February 26, 2014 I had a 40-minute telephone
conversation with David Maguire, Manager of the Environmental
Assessment Section, in the Sustainable Development and Impact
Evaluation Branch of the Department of Environment and Local
Government. (15)

In Mr. Maguire's view, the work outlined in the subject proposals is
preliminary, "small," and can be approved without much intervention in
order to get things moving. He said that the "nature of this
particular industry is that there is continued collection of data as
the projects get underway" which could also be expressed as: they
don't have much of an idea what they will encounter once they get
started. He said that "this government has clearly stated that it
plans to encourage companies to proceed with shale gas development."
If a company wants to "do this or that or frack here or there," GNB
will see this as in compliance with its policy. "Only when the company
says, we want to go into commercial production" will the Minister get
involved to say yea, nay, or approve with conditions to the proposal.
In view of Mr. Maguire's comments, I became even more concerned about
the vacuous and superficial nature of the proponent's purported EIA
studies.

The phasing of the proposals seems designed to avoid restrictions
found in the most current GNB rules and policies. Under Section 9.8 in
GNB's Rules for Industry (see Appendix B), on Protecting Flood Prone
Areas, Wetlands and Watercourses, much of the development proposed in
these submissions is not allowed. (16) The proponent seems to argue
that all the work currently proposed is simply a sprucing up of
existing infrastructure so approvals could follow without
complications from Sec. 9.8, e.g. the new proposals will be
"grandfathered in." As I see it, the vast majority of the proposed
work is new construction or using new techniques, with new challenges
and potentials. It needs to be carefully examined and considered
before approvals are granted. We are not talking about building a new
barn or a swimming pool. This is serious stuff.

If the proponent obtains these and upcoming small-scale, incremental,
project approvals without a full and thorough review of the
environmental risks and impacts, the precedent is set for approval of
all subsequent small, incremental "phases" of development on this site
without serious study. This system of "grandfathering in" will
continue – if what Mr. Maguire said is correct – up to the point where
the proponent is ready to operationalize full scale commercial
production. At this future point, the proponent could reasonably argue
everything is already in place, so all remaining plans do not require
any serious, transparent, comprehensive EIA process.

It appears GNB's attitude could be summarized as damn the torpedoes,
full speed ahead – because GNB fully supports the proponent to move
towards much larger, commercial production. Sketchy oversight based on
a simulated or sham EIA process is fine because GNB does not want to
put barriers in the way of industry. Let them do what they want and
hope they don't make too much of a mess, despite the legitimate
concerns that are already very apparent. This cheer-leading attitude,
while at the same time undertaking no meaningful human health or
environmental protection or prevention planning, did not serve the
people of Penobsquis well in the previous round of shale gas
industrial development. There is little likelihood it will serve the
people as the industry ramps up.

Let's shift gears for one moment, to get another view on all this.

Don Bowser is the President of IMPACT, an international
non-governmental organization headquartered in Halifax that works "to
establish good governance and curb corruption around the globe. IMPACT
provides targeted assistance to governmental, non-governmental and
international organizations seeking to enhance systems of oversight,
manage integrity, and increase transparency and accountability." (17)
Mr. Bowser is a New Brunswicker born and bred, with ancestors in this
region going back to 1772. He is also an international expert on
transparency and anti-corruption in governments and extractive
industries.

Mr. Bowser was recently interviewed by independent video-journalist
Charles Theriault from Kedgewick NB, in the 21st segment of Charles'
online video project Is Our Forest Really Ours?, Charles explores with
Don the relationship between transparency, accountability and
corruption:

"The extractive industries – mining, shale gas, natural gas, and the
forestry – all that goes on here with very little public consultation.
Having worked around the world, this is pretty surprising. …All over
the world citizens are demanding to know, 'What is going on with
extractive industries?' But here everyone seems to accept this lack of
transparency as business as normal. Almost zero information about
royalties except from the companies own statements.

"In New Brunswick, natural resources are being extracted, public
resources are being used for private gain. Where public resources are
involved you have no right to keep the dealings between government and
the company secret. I am surprised that civil society in New Brunswick
has not established any corporate responsibility. They use the fear of
losing jobs, so people do not rise up, even though the world is
resource hungry and many other corporations would come in that would
not expect this lack of transparency." (18)

Mr. Bowser's comments are relevant because your government is taking
the reports submitted by AMEC for the proponent as professional,
competent, and valid enough to stand in lieu of a genuine EIA process.
In no way can AMEC be considered an unbiased or independent consultant
in regards to these two misnomered documents. AMEC, the consultant
hired by Corridor Resources to prepare the subject proposal documents,
has been in partnership with PotashCorp since at least 2007. They
advertise this on their website. (19) As well, the two companies are
acting together in a legal matter that goes back to 2010, involving a
former contractor with PotashCorp on a job where AMEC was the project
manager. (20) Further, PotashCorp and Corridor have been working
together since 2003. (21) These linkages make it patently obvious that
the interests all three companies are deeply integrated.

The hollow pro forma documents submitted by the "insider" project
partner AMEC do not even come close to a valid environmental impact
assessment analysis, let alone the transparent, open, full and
comprehensive environmental impact study that these new development
proposals require.

Based on these incomplete and misleading documents, prepared by a
company that is a corporate partner with a corporate partner of the
proponent, GNB apparently intends to approve this work.

I am deeply concerned about your Government's apparent lack of honesty
and transparency, and also your lack of diligence in safeguarding the
long-term public interest of New Brunswickers. These concerns arise
from what I now understand to be the approval processes for resource
industry development in New Brunswick. More on how Mr. Maguire
illuminated my understanding of the GNB EIA process is found in
Appendix C.

7 Call for CMOH to help with a Comprehensive Review of these
Proposals, and for CMOH and IMPACT to assist GNB to Create a Valid and
Productive EIA Process

Let me be perfectly clear, I am deeply committed to seeing an
unconditional, legislated 10 year moratorium placed on all shale gas
and oil development in this region. However, if shale gas development
is proceeding, it only seems right that your government ensures
everything is done totally on the up-and-up, COMPLETELY safely,
ethically and appropriately, including a thorough prior review. In
fact, Minister Soucy your department is directly mandated to be
hands-on in ensuring this.

Our Premier, David Alward, has repeatedly assured First Nations and
all New Brunswickers that the shale gas and oil industry will not
place New Brunswickers and our environment at risk. He claims the
"world-class" GNB Rules for Industry policy document ensures this, but
the real safeguard is, he says, through public involvement in the
Environmental Impact review process. I heard him say these things
personally in a meeting that occurred at Hotel Delta Beausejour on
October 6, 2013. This was prior to the registration of the first of
these subject applications. About two weeks later, the Premier
reiterated this publicly: "there would have to be very significant
consultations and environmental impact assessments before anything
else would be able to move forward." (22) In an article in the Saint
John Telegraph-Journal on February 26, 2014, Minister of Environment
and Local Government is quoted saying, "drilling does not go ahead
without an environmental impact assessment." Drilling is exactly what
is planned in the proponent's October proposal. (23) It is time to
pony up and show us how well these rules can serve to protect us
through the EIA process.

Unfortunately, I have no faith that your government will take my
comments seriously. Successive Governments of New Brunswick have
failed to take seriously the need to ensure public safety and
environmental protection in regards to the substantial damage
associated with this industry. Section 6 and Appendix C describe why I
agree Dominic Cardy, leader of the New Brunswick NDP, who said, "I
have no faith in the province's ability to regulate" the shale gas
industry. In general, "New Brunswick has a serious problem with
enforcing the rules." (24)

Because I am sadly convinced that you will shunt aside all public
concerns about these proposals, I am forwarding this letter to the
Office of the Ombudsman for New Brunswick. It is his mandate to ensure
our provincial government operates with integrity in regards to
consultation with its residents.

Regardless of my doubts, I do sincerely hope you decide to do the
right thing. For the sake of future generations, you must make the
determination to require that these proposals be comprehensively
reviewed for human health and environmental considerations arising
from the intended development activities in the submissions, as well
as the future development envisaged by the proponent at this location.
If you do so, I entreat you to invite the Office of the Chief Medical
Officer of Health to join the EIA Technical Review Committee (see
Appendix B) to assist with review of these submissions, and that
henceforth her Office will be invited to be a standing member of this
Committee.

I also hope that you decide that the issues I have raised in Section 6
and Appendix C about your customary EIA process are of deep concern to
you. Now is the time to improve on the process used for EIA reviews,
especially those involving controversial extractive resource and
resource transportation industries, and to revise the regulation
(87-83) so that the EIA process is once again fully enshrined in law.

The decision to act on this would be in keeping with the final
paragraph of the GNB "Blueprint" extract found on Page 15 in Appendix
D of this communication. If you make this courageous, ethical and
forward-thinking decision, I hope your government will retain the
services of an organization such as IMPACT to assist with the process.

I look forward to a prompt and full response on all matters from your staff.

Respectfully yours,
Ann Pohl

copies:
Dena Murphy, Corridor Resources dmurphy@corridor.ca
Charles Murray, Ombudsman nbombud@gnb.ca
David Maguire, Manager, Environmental Assessment ELG David.Maguire@gnb.ca
Dr. Eilish Cleary, NB Chief Medical Officer of Health Eilish.Cleary@gnb.ca
Karen White, Director, Healthy Environments, Health Karen.White@gnb.ca
Stephan Hamel, Healthy Environments, Health Stephan.Hamel@gnb.ca
Jennifer Murray, Director, Office of the Ombudsman Jennifer.Murray@gnb.ca
Perry Haines, ADM. Environment & Local Government Perry.Haines@gnb.ca
Hon. David Alward, Premier of New Brunswick David.Alward@gnb.ca
Hon. Craig Leonard, Minister of Energy and Mines Craig.Leonard@gnb.ca
Sheila Goucher, Environment & Local Government Sheila.Goucher@gnb.ca
Leaders of all NB Opposition Parties
Aboriginal Rights Coalition – Atlantic
Canadian Union of Public Employees
Concerned Citizens of Penobsquis
Conservation Council of New Brunswick
Council of Canadians, Atlantic Region and National Office
Elgin Eco Association
KAIROS, Atlantic Region
Maritime Conference of the United Church of Canada
Media contacts
NB National Farmers Union
New Brunswick College of Family Physicians
New Brunswick Environment Network, Shale Gas Caucus
New Brunswick Lung Association
New Brunswick Nurses Union
New Bunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance
Public Service Employees Union of Canada
Unifor
United Church, Maritime Conference

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Leave Comments here