Andrew Nikiforuk is the man!

I am always eager to read new articles by Andrew Nikiforuk when they are posted here... a bit like the magnetic nature of catastrophic events that cause people to stare, despite the carnage one may witness.

When I think my eyes have already bulged to their optic maximum, Mr. Nikiforuk proves that there is still room for expansion, triggering seismicity in my brain. Conversely, this results in a withering of my already frail "belief" in people to do the right thing.

I suppose that some savvy investors have profited from this carnage, so as long as the retirement portfolio of the many is also bulging, the collateral damage can be managed and justified.

I often wonder what happened to the cautionary principle?

The cautionary principle died

The cautionary principle died with "wealth creation".

Ed Deak.

Another reason

Induced earthquakes are another reason to stop fracking and to start regulating the conservation, preservation and management of clean pure water in British Columbia.

With good law reform for water, the site C dam, hydro-fracking for shale gas and tar-sand pipelines across British Columbia would be less likely to happen.

And who will help

To make those laws?
I'm feeling a bit cynical about "Good law reform for water".
Considering the folks that would make the laws today I'd be afraid they would legislate to take one of the hydrogen atoms out of the compound and sell it as:
HO or OH basically

The people of B.C.

The public has to get behind law reform for water in the interests of environmental and human health before the next provincial election. Only politicians can make those laws.

OCCUPY Lethbridge to put Fracking on trial

OCCUPY LETHBRIDGE is seeking to hold a very serious mock event. "Putting Fracking on Trial" is the proposed event, tentatively planned for March. If handled professionally, we envision that it might be possible to show that citizen groups can "occupy" the high moral ground, and perhaps even do a better job of protecting the public interest (like yours and other groups do) than those who are actually paid salaries to do this, but in reality do not.........sorry if this might be a repetition of work you may have already done, but we see this as possibly another kick at the can, so to speak.

We would like to present an event that portrays arguments, pro and con, and perhaps evidence of any obvious failures or areas where government or environmental rules have been ignored or violated. It would hopefully be a chance to see if fracking is being presented fairly to the public and also to see whether our government is being fair, honest and transparent to its citizens on the matter........or is it a rubber stamp sellout to corporate interests?

We hope that it might grow and become something that helps to raise awareness, and we would really like to work together towards a common goal of protecting the public interest.

Any help you can be to help us get in touch with the right people would be greatly appreciated.

I hope you have a contact or three that you can refer us to and we can start the ball rolling at plans and putting together an event for the public and media.
Send correspondence to me at

and I will try to keep the ball rolling on this and keep everyone informed.
Larry Elford

I am very worried about the

I am very worried about the amount of water use in fracking, and the pollution implications. But when it comes to seismic effects,

1. What damage has been caused by the relatively earthquakes induced by fracking?

2. If damage is significant, can it be compensated by companies involved? Or are there damages which are non-compensable -- implying a need to ban fracking on seismic damage grounds?

just asking.

oil and gas found adjacent to fault lines

Shale is usually found along faults and fractures so it is not hard to imagine tremors being produced by injecting large quantities of water at very high pressures. Indeed, oil and gas exploration companies target these fault areas for exploitable quantities of oil and gas.

Heavy rainfalls themselves are known to trigger tremors along fault lines. At one time geologists studied the idea of injecting water into sections of the San Andreas Fault Line to trigger minor tremors and release pressure on the two adjoining plates. No one could predict the outcomes of this practice so it was never used. Scientists also thought of detonating small nuclear bombs along the fault to relieve pressure.

We really need to shake-up the Oil and Gas Commission and make it fully transparent. This Commission should be set up like the BC Utilities Commission prior to Gordon Campbell's interference.

The crux of the problem is

The crux of the problem is the corporatocracy that rules all man-made endeavour under the sun (and has designs on that as well) and sits in at cabinet meetings federally and provincially.

Unfortunately even a majority of the 99% relies on the market/ corporations for a helping hand-out for "a better future."

The sheeple are politely queing up to be slaughtered. We would be better off "biting the hand that feeds" before the masters of the universe try to extract all our teeth in search of gold.

Good on you Larry!

I am certainly not one to point the finger - 'cause I would have to point it at myself - but it's all too rare that I see a post on this site as proactive as Larry Elford's proposal with a call up to the plate. Thanks for the inspiration - great idea!

David
Victoria VI

Fracking - A response to Frank2

As far as I'm aware, Frank, the magnitude of recorded seismic activity associated with fracking so far is relatively low. Most of the reports I've come across suggest less than magnitude 3 on the Richter scale is most common. As pointed out in the article, there's been a long-established relationship between recorded seismic activity and fracking. There are also also well-established relationships between seismic activity and other subterranean mining activities, and the creation of large dams/reservoirs for hyrdo-electric projects.

As far as I'm aware, seismic events associated with fracking have not yet been associated with any recorded property damage.

With regards to the burden of liability of fracking-induced seismic events, I'm unaware of any case law that's been established so far. Generally, seismic activity measured at less than 4.5 on the Richter scales isn't associated with property damage or loss of life in North America.

In my opinion - and it's my opinion only, as I haven't reviewed the research necessary to establish this - the greatest risks associated with fracking may arise from contamination of water tables and other bodies of water. I wouldn't like the compounds associated with fracking in my drinking water, or used to irrigate the crops we eat. I wouldn't recommend it for our wildlife either . . .

Personally, I think a moratorium on fracking operations for either the seismic risks or potential pollution risks would be the responsible, prudent choice right now. That may be a challenging task, especially considering the revenue generated by fracking operations: yes, there are jobs created by fracking but that's not the real issue. In my opinion, the real hurdle to overcome is the tendency of fossil-fuel extractors to devote large sums of their considerable revenue to public-relations campaigns and political donations. As always, money buys access to legislators and administrators, as well as pre-packaged soundbites and propaganda campaigns. Think along the lines of the tobacco lobby for the last 50 years or so and you've got the right idea.

That said, there's absolutely no reason that an evidence-based approach to public policy won't succeed with effective public support. Carpe diem.

Waltz

"Only the politicians"
Maybe that is the problem

Precautionary, not cautionary

Ed, you often echo my sentiments.

But terminology can be significant.

If there is a minefield ahead, creating its own murderous, surface seismic events, then CAUTIONARY procedures are risk assessed to move through that field (guess who takes the physical risks and who benefits), but the PRECAUTIONARY procedure would be to avoid that minefield altogether.

Risk assessment (that could be named cautionary action), usually chosen by corporate interests and their government lackeys, and precautionary principles, more often selected by most of the aware public, except the truly desperate, are at the root of so many current controversial issues.

If the decision makers had to take true responsibility, not just financial, for their cautionary, risk assessed decisions, say, by building their trophy home mansions in the middle of mine fields, beside tar sands' tailing ponds or on sites dependent on drinking water from wells in the surrounding fracking fields, you can bet that the precautionary principle would be implemented immediately.

Can't depend on the public, even elections

Waltz, you are correct except that most B.C. residents don't live or get their drinking water from frackin' fields. NIMBY doesn't apply here, but "out of sight, out of mind" does.

The B.C. mining industry declared Christmas in summer when Gordo was first elected. Little, if any, precaution required. Low risk, big profit to promoters and distant decision makers. Just keep lobbying in Victoria, Edmonton and Ottawa.

As to voting, both provincial Liberals and NDP support natural gas exports, as do the B.C. Conservatives. Green Party anyone? So the ballot box changes little here.

Just like so much of forestry activities over the past 50 years, these mining activities depend on most of the public never seeing and experiencing first hand what is actually going on, other than their model, greenwashed, public sites.

No matter what operation, from fish farms to IPPs to mine sites, even though it's often on Crown (public) land, just try and go in to take photographs or ask questions. "Keep out, Trespassers will be prosecuted", or "Danger" (as often true as not), every attempt is made to hide the operations from public "sensitivities".

Of course, underground and underwater activities are relatively easy to conceal, so the only real precaution needed to move on with a project is to lobby government and PR spin the activity to the public.

I'm still waiting in vain to see if anyone in charge will go to jail (manslaughter) for negligence leading to the death of about a dozen rig worker, let alone massive ocean oil pollution in the Gulf spill.

No risk for those guys. BP and Haliburton are still making money hand over fist and no one was charged, other than some fines, then passed on to shareholders.

Should have been some major seismic activity there, but nothing changed. A little caution not to repeat, but no precaution required. With government support, we'll work through the next, bigger arctic minefield, when the time comes.

Just consider how many pipeline spills will occur when the huge, now due, Cascadia seismic event takes place. How will these human altered (fracked) geological structures affect the surface and aquifers during and after that event? No one knows, not even the geologists, and likely will never really know, even afterward.

That said, there's absolutely

That said, there's absolutely no reason that an evidence-based approach to public policy won't succeed with effective public support. Carpe diem.

Thanks, Richneal, for your response to my queries, and your conclusion, repeated above. It would be a breath of fresh air if the NDP could bring itself to support the call (made by Simpson) for a full evaluation of fracking.

Given the revenues and economic activity involved, however, this would require guts.

The problem is that the world

The problem is that the world has yet to figure out that economic activity can not be expressed in monetary figures, because those figures do not represent realities, but forcibly induced beliefs.

And this has been the "tragedy of humanity" since the beginning, especially since bank deregulation used as weapon of colonization and enslavement.

Ed Deak.

for you to decide how it may link together

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/eruptions-and-quakes-earth-continues-to.html

BEST PRACTICES FOR NATURAL GAS EXTRACTION

The following is a proposed resolution for the BC NDP convention.

BEST PRACTICES FOR NATURAL GAS EXTRACTION
WHEREAS the process of hydraulic fracturing, known as “fracking”, which uses the injection of water to create a fractures in the rock layer to extract natural gas, is now widely used in BC; and
WHEREAS large quantities of water are needed for the fracking process which may have impacts on surface water in lakes and streams and on the environment or groundwater; and
WHEREAS fracking generally requires the addition of chemical additives to the fracturing fluid, including acids, and those fluids are rarely one hundred percent recovered; and
WHEREAS BC New Democrats are committed to ensuring best practices and to utilizing Sustainable BC as a lens for public policy decisions.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the BC NDP demand the government undertake a public review of fracking, led by a broad, expert panel and including public hearings and consultation with First Nations, local communities, industry, environmental groups and citizens, to examine:
• the issues associated with water use, water use allocation, and the disposal of contaminated fracking fluids , including recycled and re-used water;
• the best practices within the industry and the appropriate standards for fracking operations and technologies, such as the reuse of water, the integrity of well casings, and the disposal and/treatment of chemical fluids and contaminated water;
• the cumulative impacts of oil and gas operations and the implications of the industry's expansion on regional land and water use plans and on the revisions to the Water Act being developed.

nikiforuk previous article

When you have a government desperate to get as much revenue as possible from our resources as quickly as possible and in time for elections you get poor public policy.

Nikiforuk's 2003 article on the Ladyfern field in NE BC was very telling in how Gordon Campbell and Co. were going to operate. Some of the ground work for Ladyfern and other gas fields in northern BC was set up by Glen Clark's NDP.

You can find Nikiforuk's 2003 article, "Northern Greed" here:

http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=4288&tid=8871671&showall=1

Look for Message #48552

"Only the politicians..."

Yes, if we assume we have to depend upon the politicians to draft the legislation and establish and implement the policies we actually need and want, we're obviously going to be disappointed.

I would like to see us establish a series of Citizens' Initiatives instead. Most B.C. politicians need a much louder wake-up call than the one Initiative to repeal the HST legislation has given. We need to organize ourselves so these are practical and effective and then bring all of our issues to the Government of the day directly, instead of just complaining or demonstrating or having these conversations, however important these also are. We need to follow up on every issue with direct electoral action, because that is the only form they will listen to. We can even do a Citizens' Initiative to make the Referenda binding, rather than leaving the Government in the position to play around with us for years as they've done with the HST.

It's up to us to, literally, take the initiative. We should do the same for Electoral Reform, and for providing the local electoral offices and community centres specifically for the types of People's Assemblies that we need to be able to hold in suitable and properly designed buildings and outdoor spaces. 'Doing democracy' shouldn't be forced to compete with the 'residents' normal use of our public parks and spaces. Instead, there should be designated and well-equipped facilities available for this essential function of self-government all of the time, in every neighbourhood and community, for all to use. Combining a suitable forum with local offices where everyone registers and can vote on whatever issues the local citizens want to propose, would make a much more 'direct democracy' feasible, affordable, and practical for everyone to participate in as much as they wanted.

It seems absurd and demeaning to be forced to elect dictators over and over again and then have to warp our lives all out of shape just to beg them to listen to us when they do things we know are bad for us. Then they spend our money trying to convince us they know better than we do what we need. I don't have all of the answers, but collectively I really think the citizens of B.C. could potentially come up with a lot of better solutions than I've seen coming out of Victoria the past decade.