Independent Review and Public Consultation

Dear Dr. Wheeler,

Chair,

of Hydraulic Fracking in Nova Scotia

Vershuren Centre for Sustainability in Energy and the Environment

Cape Breton University,

P.O.Box 5300,

1250 Grand Lake Road,

Sydney, Nova Scotia, B1P 6L2

Dear Dr. Wheeler and committee members:

I am writing to submit to your review of the Nova Scotia Moratorium on Fracking as a concerned native and citizen of this province; as a school teacher whose focus has always been on the health and welfare of children and as the group leader for Citizens' Climate Lobby Halifax, which works to create the political will for a more livable world. To me and thousands of other citizens climate lobby members actively involved in protecting the environment for future generations, a more livable world means a steady weaning away from fossil fuels with the subsidies those industries now receive being transferred to institutions such as yours and to researchers and entrepreneurs involved in Green energy innovation and application in order be with the times developing the potential fifty billion dollar clean energy industry. (see the three email attachments from “Analytica Advisors” and “Citizens Climate Lobby Canada”). In particular I would like to draw your attention to the discussion of the record of industrial practices, chemicals and drugs unleashed on the public without sufficient studies. (see Attachment 2 in this letter, pages six and seven).
Continuing a moratorium on hydraulic fracking for another ten years is in keeping with the global need to shift our resources away from fossil fuels causing disastrous climate instability in order to develop geothermal, wind, tidal and solar energies, as well as the myriad number of other ideas coming down the tubes trying to slow down the climate crisis upon us. Hydraulic fracking is an environmental disaster already wrecking havoc on citizens of the United States (See Attachment 1 in this letter:“Examples Of The Evidence Of The Harmful Effects Of Hydrofracking”) and political havoc on the politicians of and foreign business interests in New Brunswick, the former of whom did not study and consult on this before signing a contract for drilling. (See Attachment 2 in this letter: “Current Position Of The New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) Illustrating The Political Will To Stop Hydraulic Fracking In This Region”) What a civic, policing and public relations nightmare that group of leaders has on their hands now, including the ghastly pictures being broadcast all over the world of the police arresting citizens trying to defend their land, air and water; women and elders being pepper sprayed by aggressive police; et al. Surely, it negatively colours our neighbouring province for responsible, sustainable investment, tourism and immigration, as well as costing millions for police to protect the foreign company’s interests.

HF PRIMER LETTER

c/o Dr. Wheeler

Page two

I have followed these events in New Brunswick that continue to unfold as a result of allowing fracking exploration to take place with horror and disbelief. I’m sure you have too. The evidence of the effects of this process are broadly and deeply unstudied (See HF Attachment 2, pages six and seven discussing the need for extensive study after which citizens’ groups feel confident a permanent ban with be placed on Hydraulic Fracking in this region). Regions in the U.S that have operative fracking taking place are demanding immediate moratoriums on it.

In the recent election platform, the present provincial government promised to continue the moratorium on hydraulic fracking presently being reviewed. The NOFRAC organization believes that “1/ if the present review truly evaluates the full risks and benefits, the review cannot fairly conclude that fracking will not harm our resources, our environment, or the general public in any way and 2/ the only possible way to prevent harm to our resources, our environment and the general public is to extend the moratorium for at least 10 years or to ban fracking permanently.” I agree wholeheartedly with their position.

With 67% of Nova Scotians (NOFRAC website, March 9th, 2014) in favour of a continued moratorium, I would hope there will be no unpleasant political moves in the “dispirit” of Premier David Aylward. Nova Scotians’ health and pocket books couldn’t take it.

Sincerely,

Joanne Light

Attachment 1

EXAMPLES OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF HYDROFRACKING

"From the beginning of the shale gas industry, a little over a decade ago, people near the wells reported unusual and severe symptoms and illness, but it was years before health officials began to connect the maladies to shale gas. So even now, the longest-term public health study, by the University of Colorado, lasted only 3 years. The conclusions of that study indicated that living near a shale gas well resulted in substantial increases in the risks for developing cancer, neurological and respiratory and other diseases. As cancer and some other diseases may take years to develop, the study called for more research.

That study is now several years old. Just last week, the same University of Colorado School of Public Health completed a study of all the available research and said, “Despite broad public concern, no comprehensive population-based studies of the public health effects of UNG (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 associated with UNG production in workers and communities.”

New health threats keep appearing. Recent, independent studies have associated living near a shale gas well with low birth weight in infants, poor infant health, congenital heart defects and exposure to endocrine disruptors, substances that in the tiniest quantities can cause a host of developmental, reproductive and other diseases. These substances, whose dangers have only recently been discovered, are regularly used in the shale gas industry.

Each study indicates a new problem that shows a correlation to shale gas and each calls for more long-term research. Each also indicates problems at greater and greater distances from gas wells, and that air pollution from shale gas activities may be a more serious threat to our health than the water contamination that has been widely discussed to date. And it must be noted that there are no studies concluding that shale gas is safe."

There has been discussion about relying on two reports from Environment Canada and the US EPA. These reports suffer from several problems. Primarily they will be narrow in scope or won’t include the latest research.

The EPA report is focused solely, and I quote, “on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. Areas that fall outside of this study’s scope include, for instance: air impacts, ecological effects, seismic risks, specific health impacts, public safety, and occupational risks”. The Environment Canada report is likely to be of even less use, except as a way to identify areas that need study.

We also regret to say that both of these once-reliable agencies appear to have become tainted by political influence.

In the last year the US EPA has withdrawn from three investigations of contamination caused by shale gas activities, before publicizing its findings. Its preliminary findings in all three cases indicated that contamination had occurred, but it closed down the cases before publication due to pressure from petroleum-state senators and the White House. Incredibly, in one case it was forced to turn over the investigation to the very company accused of causing the contamination.

However, the findings of contamination became public knowledge from other sources. In Pennsylvania, it was leaked documents. In Texas, it was a consulting independent scientist. In Wyoming, the EPA scientists simply made a statement that they stood by their preliminary findings of contamination. In light of these extraordinary examples of political manipulation, the reliability and impartiality of any report from the EPA on the subject must be met with great skepticism.

In Canada the political manipulation is even more blatant. The Harper government has ceded all environmental regulation of fossil fuels to the provinces, fired thousands of scientists and regulators, and closed environmental research and review institutions. Most astoundingly, the scientists that remain are not allowed to talk to the press or the public without being cleared by a political handler. 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?

Ten years is the minimum amount of time necessary to do the long-term studies on all aspects of shale gas that are currently lacking, particularly on public health, as has been made abundantly clear in our Chief Medical Officer for Health’s award winning report on the subject, and echoed by health and research communities everywhere.

Severe health problems have been identified but not thoroughly studied.

From the beginning of the shale gas industry, a little over a decade ago, people near the wells reported unusual and severe symptoms and illness, but it was years before health officials began to connect the maladies to shale gas. So even now, the longest-term public health study, by the University of Colorado, lasted only 3 years. The conclusions of that study indicated that living near a shale gas well resulted in substantial increases in the risks for developing cancer, neurological and respiratory and other diseases. As cancer and some other diseases may take years to develop, the study called for more research.

New health threats keep appearing.

Recent, independent studies have associated living near a shale gas well with low birth weight in infants, poor infant health, congenital heart defects and exposure to endocrine disruptors, substances that in the tiniest quantities can cause a host of developmental, reproductive and other diseases. These substances, whose dangers have only recently been discovered, are regularly used in the shale gas industry.

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because history is littered with instances where the lack of sufficient testing has resulted in tragedy.

- Greg Cook, “New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA)” and former President of the Writers' Union of Canada

Attachment 2

CURRENT POSITION OF THE NEW BRUNSWICK ANTI-SHALE GAS ALLIANCE (NBASGA) ILLUSTRATING THE POLITICAL WILL TO STOP HYDRAULIC FRACKING IN THIS REGION

Extracted from “Unconditional Moratorium on Shale Gas”

By Greg Cook Sj on Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 8:16pm

The Case for a 10-year, Legislated, Unconditional Moratorium on Shale Gas

Today the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA) announces its position on the issue of a shale gas moratorium. It is the minimum standard to which we will hold our political parties.

We call for a ten (10) year, legislated and unconditional moratorium on all unconventional oil and gas exploration and production in New Brunswick.

During that period all existing leases must be suspended and no new leases granted.

(For brevity, we will use the term shale gas to mean unconventional oil and gas.)

A “legislated” moratorium means that it must be embodied in binding legislation. Campaign promises, executive actions or party platforms are not sufficient.

“Unconditional” means just that. This issue is multifaceted and 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 list of potential harms is too big to address and is growing. Research continues to encounter problems no one envisioned. How can you create conditions for things you don’t know yet?

Calling for a ten-year moratorium, rather than a ban, simply reflects the fact that there may still be New Brunswickers who have many doubts about shale gas, but who are not yet convinced that an absolute ban is warranted.

As evidence and research continues to build a case against shale gas, our membership expects that at the end of ten years shale gas will be permanently banned as a result of what we will learn during the moratorium.

In our past we have killed and sickened millions and caused irreparable harm to our environment by not doing long-term research before employing things like asbestos, lead, mercury, radium, DDT, and a host of industrial chemicals - PCB’s, CFC’s, and dioxins.

Consider the years of testing necessary to certify a single drug for human use. Yet the chemicals known to be available for use in hydro-fracking number roughly 650, combined in nearly a thousand different products. While many are already known to have toxic or carcinogenic properties, many have not undergone any testing at all, and virtually none have been tested in combinations with the others. Yet we will be breathing them in 24/7, and ingesting them in our water and food.

We call for a 10-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 moratoriums and bans on shale gas activities.

It would be prudent to find out why. Ten years will also allow us to observe the long-term effects on communities that host the shale industry. Boom-bust social problems are increasingly cited in news reports from those areas, in addition to the health threats noted.

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because we wonder if the industry itself will even persist?

Existing shale plays have hit peak production in 4 or 5 years. Many experts predict that the industry as a whole will have a very short lifespan. It that where we want to bet our future? Waiting ten years will let us know if they are correct.

We call for a 10-year unconditional moratorium, because within 2 years world leaders plan to commit to binding reductions on fossil fuel usage and lower carbon emissions.

Many global institutions and nearly all climate scientists conclude that three quarters of all fossil fuels must stay in the ground to prevent catastrophic, irreversible climate change. Some investment counselors, a growing social movement, and even the president of the World Bank, are saying that divestment of fossil fuels is not only a move toward self-preservation, but also a smart fiscal idea. A ten-year wait will tell the tale.

All the above mean that we will have to switch to alternative clean energies, which fortunately, are by far the fastest growing parts of the energy sector, creating huge numbers of jobs. Our time should be spent pursuing this sensible future.

Contrary to the Minister of Energy’s comments, delaying this industry is the only sensible thing to do. Gas is not like a factory that investors can move elsewhere for a better deal. In the unlikely events that in ten years it can be extracted safely, and the world wants it, investor’s will come here, because the gas will be here.

In the meantime, the citizens of New Brunswick have been loud and clear about not wanting their families to be guinea pigs in return for an uncertain promise of a few temporary jobs.

Eighty municipalities, thirty-three community groups, much of the medical establishment, agricultural and rural associations, religious organizations and a large number of unions, including the largest public and private sector unions in Canada have called for a ban, a ten-year moratorium or a simple halt to the shale gas industry.

It is time that the voices and will of those people are heard by the politicians who claim to represent them. We intend to track and publicize the positions of every candidate on this issue between now and the election. Candidates, expect to be hearing from your electorate.