Examining the Ethics of Fracking

Donna Mclellan  ::  Sackville Tribune-Post  ::  23 July 2014

Treating others as we want to be treated, leaving things a little better than we find them and committing ourselves to improvement;  simple concepts that define us as an advanced civilization. They are part of religious teaching and secular parenting and show us the moral path forward despite all the bad things that happen along the way.

Industry and the incredible wealth it creates has been a stumbling block to communities everywhere, because as the underpinning of the modern world, it lacks, in every way, the moral values that we teach as a society.

Fossil fuel extraction in general and fracking in particular are in an ethical no man's land.  In the industry's race to squeeze every last drop of oil and gas out of the earth we see a complete lack of transparency in the way they do business.   The industry refuses to identify and disclose the many chemicals used during the process of fracking that along with water and sand crack the shale rock to release the natural gas.  The group of highly toxic chemicals used to frack are known carcinogens and hormone disrupters;  if they were really safe why keep it a secret?

The issue of the integrity of the well casings is another another area where the industry equivocates.  Age and stability determine the dependability of these casings, we know they will leak sooner or later.  If they are truthful about structural weaknesses it is a no win situation, from their perspective, improving the flaws in the infrastructure would be cost prohibitive.    

In the U.S there is a shocking breach of ethics called the Halliburton Loophole that in 2005 exempted all fracking procedures from the U.S Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.  Canadian regulators have not gone down that road per se, but they allow unconventional shale gas drilling the same leeway, with regard to Canada's Water Act, as they do conventional gas drilling, which is a far less toxic technology.  If the fracking process is safe, why does the industry need an exemption from legislation designed to protect the environment?  And why would we believe claims that industry will adhere to safety regulations if they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else?

Interestingly, the 17th Congressional District in Pennsylvania recently succeeded in repealing this loophole as a first step toward untangling one of the worst ethical conundrums this beleaguered state has had to deal with during the last ten years.

Safety issues are also central to the ethical debate concerning fracking.  Both industry and government say fracking is safe, but to date there are no peer reviewed scientific studies to support this.  Governments insist that fracking can be done safely with proper over sight and firm regulations, but we have seen many municipalities in which regulations become meaningless because there is no political will to enforce them.  

We know too, that the industry does not have the technology to deal with the waste that fracking produces, whether it is methane emissions that increase air pollution and exacerbate climate change, or the treatment of toxic waste water that surfaces in pools above ground.  This flowback is routinely injected back into the earth but more often than we know, this toxic radioactive waste water is simply dumped into local lakes and rivers.  No current technology exists to deal with these problems.

Yet the industry continues to repeat that oil and gas exploration is safe for the environment using television ads showing people in hard hats viewing grassy landscapes with satisfaction, suggesting that land is properly reclaimed by industry after the oil and gas rigs have come and gone.  And we see smiling people in hardhats 

holding beakers of clear water, demonstrating the impossible, that waste water can be easily purified.  

But perhaps the industry's use of influence to place a "gag order" on doctors in Pennsylvania is the most shocking ethical lapse so far.  When doctors realized there was a connection between industry workers and local residents and clusters of degenerative diseases, the shale gas lobby used it's considerable political influence to legally silence them.  Doctors who sign an oath to "do no harm" are now unable to discuss with  their patients what is making them sick if it relates to the chemicals involved in fracking, thanks to a bill called Act 13. 

This is the industry that wants to start drilling in N.B. and has the full confidence of the Conservative Government.  The public not only want to perceive that corporations are behaving ethically, they want to see evidence of this as well.  The lack of trust in the shale gas industry has created the significant push-back against government policy that we see in N.B. today.

Industry intentionally misinforms the government and government misleads the public in a troubling parody of what good government is supposed to be.  The refusal to consult with and reassure (with evidence) concerned citizens who know that there is a great deal to be worried about regarding this industry, is troubling as well.  Government  

can produce no credible information that fracking is safe in a world awash with information that it is harmful.  

This all disrespects the notion so common among people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds that we ultimately need to leave the environment to our children and grandchildren in better shape than it is today.  We need to reclaim democracy, which is rapidly slipping away, and insist that both the government and the oil and gas industry are accountable to the public.  

We need to understand that we are all in this serious and challenging situation together, have a change of heart, and treat one another with respect and fellowship.

We need to look at the impact of our culture on human communities and consider the well being of future generations.  

And we need to be active as citizens in defending the rights and freedoms that have been legislated to protect us.

"In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the Precautionary Principle.  Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation." 

Supreme Court of Canada,  Section 2.3

Donna Mclellan for the 

Tantramar Alliance Against Hydrofracking    

THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT’S WAR ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Sackville Post Tribune

A democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies with a body of citizens who elect people to represent them.  People and groups in a democratic society enjoy freedom of speech and the right to publicly communicate ideas and opinions (with the exception of expressions of hate that are gender based or racist in nature).

A dramatic drop in media coverage on climate change science has resulted from the Federal Government's introduction of new rules in 2007 aimed at controlling the content and tenor of interviews between government scientists and journalists.

A spokesperson for the Conservatives confirmed that meteorologists will not be allowed to speak publicly on climate change at all;  the reason they give is that meteorologists don't have qualifications in the science of climate change.  For example, they can comment on the frequency of extreme weather, but not on how they feel climate change affects global warming.

Environment Canada climatologists are considered qualified to address issues on climate change, but under this "communications policy" they must get permission from government officials before giving interviews to journalists about the severity of climate change, with the content of their message undergoing scrutiny as well.

As a result scientists are inhibited from speaking freely, which is their right in a democratic society.  This has been confirmed in a survey which indicates that 90% of government employees feel that they can't speak freely and 24% confirming that they have been required to exclude or alter information beforehand.  

These restrictions have been an effective way of prohibiting information on the real causes of climate change, and the effects it will have in the future, from coming to light in Canada.  A leaked Environment Canada analysis found that there had been an 80% drop in media coverage on climate change issues since the communications policy was put in place.  "Many climate change scientists are recognized experts in their field, having received media training and have successfully carried out media interviews for many years", said the document leaked by an unnamed employee. This same analysis noted that four prominent scientists who regularly addressed climate change issues appeared in twelve newspaper clippings in 2008, compared with 99 clippings in 2007, the year that the new regulations were proposed.

The Climate Change Network that led an investigation into the muzzling of scientists feels that this approach will affect funding, appointments to science panels and communication on climate change research in Canada.

"This all points to the government trying to undermine climate change research.  It goes against their public statements that they are committed to research and that they believe in the fundamentals of climate science".

Another organization, The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, is similarly concerned.  This group of scientists, considered to be the leading agency for global warming research in Canadian Universities, has been denied funding crucial to their ability to continue to educate through the publishing of scientific research papers.  This foundation has funded nearly 200 research projects that have led to breakthroughs in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, transforming the way both government and private industry operate.  

The Conservative Government, a fierce supporter of tar sands development, has created this relatively recent hostile environment to impede investigative journalism critical of the administration.  The tar sands are the third largest oil reserve in the world.  Production is increasing so rapidly that capital investments are predicted to reach $218 billion over the next 25 years.  Backward progress like this is antithetical to the new conventional wisdom that we need to keep it in the ground.

Climate change is one of the biggest reasons that the tar sands are so controversial.  This oil with its thick consistency requires unconventional methods for extraction.  These methods are more carbon intensive in that they emit more greenhouse gases than normal drilling.  Increased tar sands production has resulted in Canada's energy industry becoming the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the country, edging out transportation for the first time.

While people often think of Canada as an environmentally friendly country, our cities are energy hogs and we are in the top ten in terms of carbon emissions per capita, just a hop, skip behind the U.S.

The U.S., however, has a population 10x that of Canada, and there is no indication that the government of this very big country with a comparatively small population, with a very lucrative, but a very dirty oil industry, has any intention of passing legislation to reduce carbon emissions any time soon.   

"That such pygmies should cast such long shadows only shows how late in the day it has become", Irwin Chargraff,  Biochemist

These days the tar sands are getting a lot of bad press;  from people of note, climate scientists and environmental journalists both inside and outside Canada.  And now we have a stunning unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that First Nations people will have the opportunity to claim title to their ancestral lands.  The Federal and Provincial governments will no longer have a duty to consult, but rather an obligation to win consent.

The Federal Government and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers now officially consider the term "tar sands" to be a colloquialism, no longer acceptable in any serious dialogue about Alberta's number one export.  Foreign journalists, Alberta bound, may find themselves confronted at Customs by belligerent officials who insist that it is the oil sands they will be visiting, not the tar sands.  And don't dally, for heaven's sake, because the Feds will most likely issue an official document limiting the visit to a week or less.  Those who use the term tar sands, both environmentalists and journalists alike, are now the enemy.

From what I have read, a visit to the tar sands must be a solemnly awesome experience.  Enormous smokestacks dominate the landscape with large black deserts sitting next to ponds of chemical waste.  There is little evidence of the nearby boreal forest that was.

Leaks from the tailing ponds leech into the Athabasca River and flow downstream to various native communities.  There are corresponding reports of a consistent rise in cancer rates in these areas over the last twenty years.  

The high carbon intensity of tar sands extraction and the likelihood that these sites will never be reclaimed and returned to their natural state are of great concern despite television images to the contrary from the oil industry.  

The organization Canadian Journalists for Free Expression issues a report card annually reviewing freedom of information in Canada.  The relevant concerns here are two-fold;  one is the increased amount of bureaucracy  journalists have to negotiate to get at significant information, the other is the continuing cuts to the funding of scientific research.  The report card gave a failing grade to Canada's Access to Information system, as well, noting the long delays in the time it takes to get a response and the fact that much of the information is heavily censored.  

The government has also been working to dismantle environmental groups by spying on them, cutting their funds and otherwise disrupting their efforts.

For example, the majority Conservative Government has the CRA targeting environmental groups for possible abuses of their non-profit charitable status.  Former Minister Joe Oliver then stating;  "There are environmentalists and other radical groups that would seek to block the opportunity to diversify our trade.  They seek to exploit every loophole they can find, to ensure that delay kills good projects."

As well documents obtained by the Guardian in February of 2014 revealed that both the RCMP and CSIS view environmental activist protest as "forms of attack" and depict those involved as national security threats.

Journalists, reporters and activists say that they experience an egregious amount of defensiveness, spitefulness and intimidation that prevents them from doing their job effectively.  Andrew Nikiforuk, an award winning journalist who has been reporting critically about the oil and gas industry for twenty years refers to current politicians and bureaucrats as a "government of thugs".  He was slandered and libeled by members of Canada's Energy Resources Conservation Board when they tried to prevent the publication of his 2010 book ,"Tar Sands", claiming he made factual errors.  Nikiforuk fought the claims, published the book and eventually won the Society of Environmental Journalist's Rachel Carson Book Award.

As for the Alberta government, documents obtained by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation found that they employ 214 communications professionals at a cost of $21 million per year to run down stories critical of the industry.  This number (214)  far outstrips the number of reporters that cover a range of government departments like health, education and law enforcement, none of whom are dedicated to attacking journalists.  

Thus far this strategy seems to be working, environmental issues about leaking tailing ponds and bitumen waste, toxic contaminants leeching into waterways and the impact of excess sulfur produced are perceived by environmental journalists as being under-reported.  

The hostility towards environmental activists, however, has been in the public eye lately which has resulted, surprisingly, in record breaking donations to environmental groups from average citizens, a clear sign that Canadians support protecting the environment from the effects of tar sands development.

Far from being a disincentive for the public to support activism, the government's paranoid behavior is becoming a reason for the public to view the expansion of the tar sands, rightfully, as the most harmful resource development in the country.

Donna Mclellan for the 

Tantramar Alliance Against Hydro-Fracking

An Open Letter to New Brunswickers Concerning 

SWN's Campaign of Disinformation

Letter To The Editor  ::  20 June 2014

On June 17th, both television news and the Brunswick News papers reported that SWN Resources would contribute millions to the N.B. economy through shale gas development.  

The company speculates they will:

- hire locally and purchase supplies from the government.

- save fresh water by re-using non-potable water.

- work with the Nature Conservancy to protect wetlands.

- follow responsible management practices.

SWN has not been able to keep the aforesaid promises doing business in the U.S., so why would we believe that they could do so here?  They have, in fact, incurred countless violations and penalties over the last 10 years, all of which are documented and in the public domain.  

Much of the credible research that has been done on the industry indicates that the gas reserves are not as productive as the industry had predicted and that the associated pollution of air, water and land from fracking is making people sick.

Environment Canada recently announced that there is "little information on the effects of shale gas development on the environment."

The International Panel on Climate Change concludes "data about potential environmental impacts are neither sufficient nor conclusive."

Because of statements like these, in the province of N.B., there has been no ongoing approval or Social License granted on the part of the public.  There is not the slightest indication that a majority of New Brunswickers have expressed any kind of broad social acceptance of the shale gas industry.

There is no shortage, either, of credible science-based criticism of the industry coming from scientists and environmentalists alike.

Peer-reviewed scientific reports and Government statistics from across North America indicate that:

- the cement walls of well casings lose their structural integrity, threatening groundwater.

- flaring increases greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

- there are negative health impacts to residents living up to several kilometers from gas wells.

- there is a breakdown in community well-being in areas associated with fracking.

Scientists agree on what must be done to help those living with shale gas exploration now and those who wish to protect themselves from the industry now and in the future.

Industry needs to stop misleading the public, adopt science-based regulations and impose rigorous inspections.  Government needs to look to science for information, fund credible research and stop spreading disinformation.

The public needs assurances that until the potential impacts are understood and acknowledged there will be a 10 year moratorium, time enough to determine whether the industry is safe or not.

Donna Mclellan on behalf of the

Tantramar Alliance Against Hydro-Fracking  

WHY WE NEED TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Sackville Tribune-Post  ::  4 June 2014

With the provincial election less than four months away, the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA), representing 33 community groups across the province, has released its position on the issue of a shale gas moratorium.

                       

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

                                                                         New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance

A moratorium incorporating binding legislation is necessary to guarantee that the industry comes to a halt, with existing leases suspended and no new leases granted.  We cannot rely on campaign promises, executive actions or party platforms.

The issue is complex and the research is just now developing.  There are no conditions or reports that can in any way make a definitive statement that this factor or that will make it okay to proceed.

The latest statements from the Minister of Energy suggest that we can derive satisfactory information from two reports due in 2014, one from the EPA and the other from Environment Canada.  These reports, however, will have many shortcomings.

The EPA, in particular:

✱   will focus solely on water contamination.

✱  will not include considerations about air pollution, ecological effects, seismic risks, negative health impacts, public safety and occupational hazards, to name a few.

✱  will be using out-dated research and will not include information contained in scientific studies that have come out in the last year.

✱  has been tainted by undue political influence.  The U.S EPA has, in the past, withdrawn its findings on contamination from public scrutiny because of pressure from petroleum-state Senators.

The findings and publication of reports on the risks of contamination and other health issues, however, have been coming fast and furious in the last year.  In Pennsylvania it was information from leaked documents, in Texas reports from independent scientists and in Wyoming the EPA simply confessed that they had found irrefutable evidence of contamination.  

But the most damning information coming from the jurisdictions that have been major shale gas developers are the government statistics from individual states indicating serious problems like the cost to the state due to infrastructure damage, increases in the number of emergency room visits and state-wide health care costs, disease   clusters and birth defects in areas closest to gas wells, and the list goes on.  

In Canada the industry is still in its early years, but political manipulation, with an unfairly biased disposition to support oil and gas production at all costs, has gutted environmental regulations that have been in place for decades, fired thousands of scientists and closed agencies and libraries specializing in environmental protection.

What faith can we have in a report controlled by a government and party that seem to be doing everything they can to silence the voice of science, especially when it applies to the fossil fuel industry?

  

The University of Colorado published one of the first studies on the impacts of shale gas, they concluded that the risk of developing cancer, neurological and respiratory diseases, increased with regard to people living near gas wells, but as these diseases take time to surface more research was needed.  

In April of 2014 research results both old and new were assessed and they reported that;  "despite broad public concern, no comprehensive population-based studies of the public health effects of unconventional natural gas operations exist.  Overall the current literature suggests that research needs to address these uncertainties before we can reasonably quantify  the likelihood of occurrence or magnitude of adverse health effects".  To date there are no studies concluding shale gas is safe.

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

                                        

Why would these states call for a moratorium now, if there wasn't a good reason to do so?

Why would our provincial government not acknowledge the need for caution and halt industry plans, with so many questions unanswered?

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

If the Conservative Government(s) survives the next election (or not) we can only hope that the next government in power will give credence to what scientists and educators around the world now believe; that climate change is real and is caused by decades of burning fossil fuels, and that we must look to sustainable sources of energy in the future. 

Some investment counselors, a growing social movement and the President of the World Bank are saying that divestment of fossil fuels is not only a move towards self preservation, but also a smart fiscal idea.

Fifteen municipalities, six medical associations, nine unions and associated organizations and 33 community groups in N.B. have called for a ban or a ten year moratorium on shale gas development.  

It's time to let the candidates know that a ten year moratorium is the minimum standard to which we will hold every political party.  NBASGA intends to track and publish each candidate's position on a shale gas moratorium during the run up to ElectionDay.  No speeches with promises, just a simple yes or no. 

                      

Human Health Studies

*"Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of      Unconventional Natural Gas Resources.", Lisa McKenzie, University of Colorado School of Public Health, Science of the Total Environment.  

*Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development.  Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado.

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

Donna Mclellan for the

Tantramar Alliance Against Hydrofracking   

A LOOK AT THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH'S REPORT ON SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT IN N.B.

Sackville Tribune-Post  ::  21 May 2014

"Health is defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".

World Health Organization 1948

In September of 2012 Dr. Eilish Cleary released a report, entitled "Chief Medical Officer of Health's Recommendations Concerning Shale Gas Development in New Brunswick", that assessed the potential impact a shale gas industry would have on human and environmental health in the province.  At the time of its release the government suppressed the report for two days, until the inevitable public outcry brought them to their senses and forced them to make the report public.  In her report Dr. Cleary warns that two things must occur before any serious attempts are made to establish shale gas development in the province;  that we take the time to investigate all of the possible negative consequences associated with unconventional shale gas drilling and have full disclosure and open consultation with the public, many of whom have serious doubts about the safety of unconventional gas exploration.  

The report, it turns out, was ahead of its time, because now, in mid 2014 there have been three more scientific and government reports appearing in as many months saying exactly the same thing;  slow down and examine the effect that the industry has had

in other jurisdictions during the last ten years, then decide whether any potential benefits outweigh the risks.

"States Parties (of which Canada is one) recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, including the provision of adequate nutritious food and clean drinking water, taking into consideration the dangers 

and risks of environmental pollution; as well Canada in its duty and role of a States Party shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children".

                                                                                                                        

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 24

The CMOH report, produced and released on Dr. Cleary's own initiative, begins by considering the as yet undetermined economic benefits of shale gas, which in themselves are questionable if industry development ultimately impacts human health negatively.

If an expansion of unconventional shale gas development takes place in N.B. the following needs must be met:

One - Actions must be taken by government to avoid any possible negative health impacts, this includes the need for infrastructure changes and increased local and provincial services that do not exist at present, but would be essential to protect public health.

Two - If the industry proceeds, continuous monitoring of the health of the population would have to be ongoing, to slow or stop further industry development if human and environmental health are perceived to be in jeopardy.

Dr. Cleary summarizes;  "All of the recommendations are grounded in the guiding principles for protecting public health, including scientific knowledge and reasonable judgement of the determinants of health, ethical considerations, public health values and principles and the resulting health objectives.  The recommendations propose actions that ensure transparency and community participation, filling knowledge gaps and enabling more effective government oversight".

These are overwhelming and costly issues to resolve so it is not surprising that the government has chosen to ignore them.

"In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the Precautionary Principle.  Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation".                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                Supreme Court of Canada, Section 2.3

Dr. Cleary's report was finalized after a critical review of shale gas development in jurisdictions around the world.  They reviewed case studies reported in credible scientific literature, listened to relevant issues that were deliberated on during conferences and in media reports, discussed the issues with public health experts and listened to the ongoing concerns about the risks of shale gas debated by the public.

Much emphasis is placed upon the need for openness, transparency and the availability of reliable information.  As well, well informed decisions cannot be made with out consultation with and participation of the public via community events, much like the Voice of the People Tour that is presently visiting locations throughout the province, fulfilling their mission to provide the public with information about shale gas and clean energy.  That this tour has been funded and organized by a group of communities opposed to shale gas development (New Brunswick Anti Shale Gas Alliance) is a testament to the strong opposition to shale gas in the province.  That the government has not offered to provide a similar venue to consult with the public indicates just how little they understand that their responsibility to the residents of the province, when dealing with such a controversial issue, is based on two way communication.   

"We are convinced that the quality of life for the residents in the Municipality of Sackville, for both the present and the future, will be destroyed if we allow at-risk exploitation and pollution of the Earth, water and air".

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Community Bill of Rights, Sackville N.B.

The report continues;  "In summary, the CMOH has provided the recommendations in this document to inform government decision-making.  Absent from the inputs to date has been consultation with the public and this is considered a key next step.  In addition, this document is intended to provide a solid information base for that discussion.  It is recognized that these recommendations would require a formal implementation and oversightstructure and require participation from across the community".  

After two years people in communities throughout the province are still waiting to see these important recommendations implemented.

Donna Mclellan for the TAAHF  

WHEN IT COMES TO SHALE GAS PRODUCTION IN THE U.S., WHO'S CRYING NOW?

Sackville Tribune-Post  ::   23 April 2014

While the N.B. government continues to use strong arm tactics to further plans for shale gas development in the province, despite the concerns of a doubtful public, other jurisdictions are revealing new evidence that this industry is not a logical choice with which to pursue environmental health or economic prosperity.

What N.B. politicians should do at this time is to check the status of natural gas production in the richest fields in America, from the Bakken in the northwest, to Haynesville down south, up to the Marcellus in the northeast.  After over ten years of exploration the prediction by some, that shale gas would be a short term bubble with higher than expected costs, has become a reality.

David Hughes, Canadian geoscientist and founder of Global Sustainability, authored a 2013 report,"Drill, Baby, Drill", in which he examined the prospect of unconventional shale gas drilling ultimately providing energy self-sufficiency in the U.S.  Here is his description of the shale gas strategy during the last decade and how things have turned out.   "Shale gas production has grown explosively to account for nearly 40% of U.S. natural gas production: never the less production has been on a plateau since Dec. of 2011--80% of shale gas production comes from five plays, several of which are in decline.  The very high decline rates of shale gas wells require continuous inputs

of capital--estimated at $42 billion per year to drill more than 7,000 wells--in order to maintain production.  In comparison, the value of shale gas produced in 2012 was just $32.5 billion.  Moreover, the basic economic viability of many shale gas plays is questionable in the current gas price environment." In other words the industry is not even coming close to breaking even.

When President Obama suggested during the Ukrainian crisis, that the U.S. would supply the EU with natural gas in the future, both scientists and journalists examined what that enterprise would involve and whether it would be possible.  In the first place such an exchange would require serious infrastructure changes at both ends.  The U.S. has no appropriately positioned liquid natural gas (LNG) export facilities and neither does the Ukraine.  At an estimated $5-10 billion per facility that alone would be a questionable investment.  Add to that the increased environmental concerns and the impact of increased production on climate, methane from gas production produces 86x as much heat as Co2 over twenty years, and you have a political promise unlikely to be kept.

But by far the most interesting turn of events is the fact that after a decade the viability of shale gas plays in the U.S has dropped dramatically.  The wells are not producing the quality or quantity of shale gas that they were at the start.  This was, to some extent understood to be a probability, but it is happening far more quickly than the industry

anticipated.   In addition to this the costs of operation are significantly higher than the revenues that the wells produce.  Higher prices for other petroleum liquids are helping to offset the losses now, but the higher cost of uneconomic wells will continue to grow as the resources are exhausted.  

The initial shale gas boom slashed prices from $13.50 (per metric cubic foot) to $2 last year, boosting U.S. industry, but causing a net loss for the gas companies of at least $93 billion in 2012.  Exxon Mobil's executive director Rex Tillerson said, "We are losing our shirts."  Chesapeake Energy, the second largest oil and gas company in the U.S. and $20 billion in debt, recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to sell its oil field services unit which manages their shale gas operations.  Since mid March, BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Shell have all announced that they will be spending less on their oil and gas operations for now.   In 2011 Shell earned roughly $28 billion from their shale gas sector only to see it drop to $20 billion in 2013.  Exxon

Mobil spent $25 billion to acquire XTO Energy for exclusive shale gas activities, this investment diluted their profits which cannot be compensated for by increasing oil production.

The investment bankers are worried as well.  Allen Brooks a managing director in an investment bank in Texas agrees that all in all "the results of the shale gas revolution have been disappointing, leading to significant asset impairment charges 

and negative cash flows."   This is a far cry from the optimistic expectations of just ten years ago.  All of which should be duly noted by the N.B. government.  Why would we want to pursue the development of such a questionable and risky resource in a province that has so much to lose if things should not go as anticipated? 

  

Donna Mclellan for the Tantramar Alliance Against Hydrofracking

PART THREE:  GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN THE TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABILITY

Sackville Tribune-Post  ::  9 April 2014

On Jan. 1st 2014 The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first part of their fifth assessment on the consistent progress of global warming.  The message then was clear, after four more years of study the scientists  had in no way changed their collective opinion that climate change is real, increasing in intensity and on track to continue warming the atmosphere unless corrective actions are taken world wide.

The second part (of three parts) of this report was released on April 1st.  The tone was more urgent, if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately to slow down and cap the warming of the atmosphere at 2 degrees Celsius within the next twenty years, we will, by then, have lost the ability to do so.  

A look at what Denmark has achieved will help us understand how a country can set and achieve ambitious climate goals that reduce dependence on coal, oil and gas.  Success begins with having the political will to forge agreements within the government and establish incremental goals that are legally binding.  For decades Denmark has done just this.  They have recently paved the way for the passage of climate targets that would outstrip goals set by the European Union (EU) of which they are a member nation.  

The European Parliament has agreed to cut GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.  Denmark plans to do it by 2020 and considering their record there is little doubt they will succeed. The broader EU targets are considered non-binding until approved by the governments of individual countries, so Denmark is moving forward with ambitious cuts to fossil fuel use that set them apart. Their final goal is to use 100% renewable energy resources and to become a low carbon society by 2050.  Presently, the numbers sourced from the Danish Energy Agency indicate renewable energy accounted for 43.1% of Denmark's domestic energy supply and for 25.8% of all the energy they consumed in 2012.

The EU has a cap and trade system for reducing carbon emissions, unlike the U.S. and Canada, but recently both California and British Colombia have passed legislation to establish carbon taxation.  Naysayers fear that a soft carbon tax will slow down the economy and hurt job creation, but neither of these things have happened in B.C.  

In Vancouver a carbon tax went into effect in 2008, passed by B.C.'s provincial government, global recession hit a few months later, but the cities growth rebounded at the same rate as other cities in the country.  The revenue from carbon taxes were plowed right back into the economy, they cut taxes for the

two lowest tax brackets and set up a system of quarterly rebates for low income families to offset increased energy prices.  The theory is that if you recycle revenues back into people's wallets you can eliminate a drag on the economy (and help many of the 99%).  It seems to be working.

The carbon tax revenue is collected at the point of sale for a range of fuels that produce CO2, gas and diesel, home heating fuel and electricity.  Sales for all these fuels fell 17.4% in B.C. from 2008-2012, every where else in Canada they went up at least 1.5%.

A case in point involves the changes that have been made at a tile manufacturing plant in Vancouver.  They currently use electricity to power their forklifts and natural gas to fuel their kilns.  Recycled heat from the kilns is now used to dry the tiles rather than purchasing new equipment to do this job that would burn the fossil fuels that are made more expensive through carbon taxation.  

Ultimately, every home and business becomes a study in how to find the cheapest and most effective ways of cutting emissions, but there have to be government incentives along the way to help the public want to make these lifestyle changes.  One of the biggest incentives is to show the average resident that the big oil and gas companies, who are major polluters, will now be forced to pay a price for continuing to mine the fossil fuels which send GHG emissions into the atmosphere 24/7.  

There is a notion in North American society that we cannot live our lives with reasonable comfort and convenience without depending on oil and gas.  We are encouraged to believe this by the industry, but with 2 degrees Celsius looming in the near future the costs and the danger to life and property due to extreme weather events will only

continue to increase.

The issue of sustainability, like so many issues, will live or die depending on the political decisions governments make in the future.  Here are two very different examples of how government decision making can have a positive or a negative effect on our lives.

The group Sustainable Prosperity (using provincial statistics) reported that due to carbon taxation in B.C., GHG emissions dropped 10% from 2008-2011, 8.9% more than the total emissions reduction in the whole of Canada for that period.  

Contrast that to the numbers from the International Monetary Fund indicating that the lack of a carbon tax in the U.S. equates to the U.S. subsidizing the oil and gas industry by as much as $502 billion a year. 

  

Donna Mclellan for the

Tantramar Alliance Against Hydrofracking   

PART TWO:  USING SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT

Sackville Tribune-Post  ::  26 March 2014

The world economy is turning, increasingly, to renewable resources to address our energy needs. With rising energy prices and ever shrinking fossil fuel reserves, sustainable growth is essential to ensure a clean environment, long term employment (emphasizing a local work force) and better, safer living conditions for residents everywhere.  The so called green revolution is central to cities, towns and municipalities unlike the huge oil and gas corporatocracy which over time has become national and multinational in nature.

The oil and gas producers who maintain control over our energy choices and consumption still believe that we can continue to extract and burn the remaining $20 trillion in stranded assets of oil and gas, despite the threat of catastrophic climate change, but increasing numbers of ordinary citizens around the world disagree.  

Biomass, solar and wind are three of the clean energy alternatives that have been successfully integrated, respectively, in the European Union and Australia and will be up and running in Cape Cod, Massachusetts by 2016.  

BIOMASS  

The EU is planning to turn up to 25% of its annual waste products into sustainable biofuels.  Biomass, organic and inorganic garbage from the farming and forestry industries and municipal solid waste, can be converted to biofuels that are anticipated to supply 16% of the EU's road transportation needs by 2030.  The advantage of making fuel from "feedstock" derived from these waste materials is three-fold:  

-  biofuels don't compete with food crops for precious agricultural land.

-  biofuels that rely on waste don't increase demand for economic activities that drive up carbon emissions.

-  biofuels, unlike ethanol which gasifies the feedstock and converts it to gas or diesel fuel, are created with an alternative form of gasification using wheat straw from farming, sawdust from forestry and municipal solid waste, avoiding anywhere from 60-300% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Material residues from agriculture and forestry that aren't used for biofuels can be accumulated in large carbon sinks.  In this way nutrients can be returned to the soil through decomposition and carbon that is absorbed is carbon that is kept out of the atmosphere.  Similarly, this technology avoids dumping increasing amounts of waste products into landfills which ultimately produce and release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

SOLAR

In Australia a national policy push for energy efficiency has resulted in a rise in rooftop solar.  In fact, energy consumption in Australia peaked in 2009 and despite extreme weather patterns has been dropping ever since.  

Instead of cutting the price of electricity at the point of generation, solar allows consumers to generate their own power.  Buying less power from the market eases stress on the grid. The heat waves that hit the country during the last two seasons have been more severe than those in 2009, yet peak demand for electricity in South Australia and Victoria continued to fall despite a 7% increase in populations since 2009.

The prices for electricity in the wholesale and retail markets are now at remarkable lows.  So low, in fact, that Energy Australia and other suppliers are closing down power plants because of a glut in supply.  The suppliers don't like it and suggest that continuing down this road could threaten energy stability, but as long as solar and wind power are successfully competitive in driving down costs and increasing the supple of sustainable energy, both the government and the public will remain supporters of renewable resources.  And why wouldn't they be?

WIND

Europe has long been the world leader in energy generation from offshore wind turbines.  The EU countries, with Denmark leading the pack in terms of dedication to renewables and reducing fossil fuel dependence, have the highest wind power capacity in the world with 2,080 turbines that yield 6,562 megawatts for 11 countries.  

An offshore wind farm off Cape Cod has been in the planning stages since 2001, but has encountered major setbacks since its inception.  American oil and gas magnate, billionaire and climate change denier Bill Koch, who owns waterfront

property in the area, has done everything in his power to prevent the "visual pollution" of turbines popping up in the Cape. Despite significant legal opposition for more than a decade, Cape Wind is now moving forward.  The EPA and other government departments have approved the project which would include 130 wind turbines installed in Nantucket Sound and would produce 75% of the regions power needs under average winds.  The clincher to the deal may have been a Danish investment in the form of a $600 million loan to help finance the Cape Wind Project.

Several other wind projects have been gaining ground in the U.S. as well.  Along the east coast 80,000 acres of land off the coast of Maryland are preparing to be auctioned off to accommodate future wind energy plans.

Next up, what Canadians are doing to move towards the establishment of renewable technologies.  Although the Federal Government has, as yet, shown little interest in pursuing renewables or soft carbon taxation, legislation has been passed in several provinces to encourage a reduction in fossil fuel dependence and commercial projects involving new technologies will, hopefully move us into sustainable territory in the future.

Donna Mclellan for the 

Tantramar Alliance Against Hydrofracking