What a civil, respectful government would do about fracking

The Alward government has responded to shale gas protests with the promise of a fall season of “information sessions” designed to make sure the public has the information about shale gas hydro-fracking the government wants us to have. Once we are supplied with government-approved information, then surely the opposition will melt away and SWN Resources can return in the spring to an uneventful season of seismic exploration. Or so the government hopes.

The chances of that happening are slim. People have been doing their own research. There are lots of reports on-line, both scientific and in the media, that contradict claims that this industry can or will be carried out responsibly here. The only thing this government can bring to the table will be promises that the regulations governing the industry in New Brunswick will be better than those in other areas, thereby minimizing the risk to water supplies, landowners and communities. They cannot eliminate the risk, nor prevent accidents, even with new regulations.

Regulations are only as tight as the companies are willing to accept. If they cannot deliver expected profit margins to shareholders, they won’t hang around. In a global regulatory marketplace, the government’s game is to attract mining, oil and gas companies with promises of high profits and low costs. New Brunswick has the dubious distinction, according to industry analysts, of having some of the “most favourable conditions” for industry investors.

Translation? Low tax and royalty regimes, lucrative exploration rights, comparatively low environmental and bond requirements, cooperative politicians and bureaucrats who will expedite the company’s operations and run interference with the public as necessary. Remember last year when Sackville town council voted to ban hydrofracking within town boundaries? A gas company executive phoned the Department of Natural Resources to fix the problem – the Province can override any such local decision. Without going into details, Sackville reversed its decision after meeting with DNR, not because councillors changed their minds about the risk of fracking to the town water supply, but because it could go bad for them if they didn’t cooperate with the company, which was to continue exploring just outside town boundaries.

Then there is Penobsquis. If there is any doubt that the government is willing to hang people out to dry in order to protect big business, this disaster should disabuse that notion.  Potash Corp. has never admitted responsibility for the loss of dozens of wells in the vicinity of their mine, even while providing trucked-in water for awhile. Eventually the company had enough of that, so the Province used taxpayer’s money to install a new water system and forced the victims to pay for the service. Now, after losing their water, their houses are being damaged and farms ruined as the land collapses beneath their feet. Residents are now before the Mining Commissioner fighting for compensation, a stressful and expensive undertaking which may well end badly, as many judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings do for those up against deep pockets and corporate lawyers.

With this experience, why should New Brunswickers trust this government to protect their water, land and communities?  Launching an information road show is not going to change this. Parties to the controversy can draw very different conclusions from the same set of essential material facts.

It all boils down to this simple statement: There are real risks associated with shale gas development even with strict regulatory controls. The government believes the risk to be small, and is willing to subject people to those risks in return for royalty payments.  The people who would be affected believe the risks are too high and are unwilling to assume them. While some people would accept some level of financial compensation for damages, others would not.

These represent not different ‘facts’ but different ethical stances based on how the parties perceive the risk and their willingness to impose or accept it. In such a situation, the government has only one honourable, civil and respectful course of action. Let those who could be affected decide for themselves whether or not to accept the risk. Some are calling for a provincial referendum. A cheaper and easier approach would be to give each community the power to hold its own vote on whether or not to allow shale gas development within its water and air sheds. If the people say no, the government would have to respect that decision and the company would have to move on. To withhold that decision from those potentially affected is to perpetuate the disrespectful, high-handed politics that New Brunswickers rejected in the last election.

— Janice

Originally published September 7, 2011