Does it ever? I mean other than the land granted to the railway?
Title to lands is historically derived and yes, mineral rights got split up. I'm not super familiar with reservations because I've never had to really work them but I do know that yes, some reserves were granted mineral title and if a company was to drill they'd have to lease out those rights (maybe for a royalty, maybe an interest).
If the rights were Crown, provincially owned by NB, and a company bought them through a lease, they could get an injunction which would grant them the right to drill / produce. Generally speaking, oil and gas or other resources are considered as resources for the benefit of the people in the province / society and a single group that owns the surface title can't unnecessarily prevent drilling / production. That's why, similarly if you were say a farmer in Alberta and only owned the surface, a company could actually force their way to drill on your land if you refuse to grant them access to the surface (by way of the regulatory body and hearings, whereby said farmer will get justly compensated based on market prices). This is a quasi-judicial branch that doesn't necessarily represent a true court.
The story more or less for fee title (true ownership, including mineral rights) has a somewhat complicated history. But briefly it can be said that the majority of land is provincially owned, some of it is owned by companies as a result of either the Hudson Bay Company's grant or the CPR grant, some of it is owned by individuals- former farmers or passed down through their wills into their families (settlers granted title by the government when Canada was trying to encourage settlement to the western portion of North America) and some of it is, yes, reservations or federal jurisdiction.
Also I think fotze nailed the fraccing thing... I would think that if something goes wrong into groundwater, it's 9/10 a poor cement job with leaks, etc. In fact I was just speaking to a scientist that teaches a course I coordinate on groundwater contamination, and she said essentially exactly what fotze posted here. The idea that the oil and gas industry's fraccing is destroying ground reservoirs is definitely not scientifically sound (at least yet).
edit^^^ and w/ respect to what the dude above me just said about 'well enough environmentalists are saying something so there must be truth...' no. The oilsands? Yeah, maybe you have a point there I have no idea. But fraccing? It's mostly ignorance, a lack of education supplied by the energy industry, poor communication from people in the know, media sensationalizing it, and hipsters making movies like Gasland which are hilariously inaccurate.
I don't know much about fracking, but it seems it is 'bad' enough to gain a lot of environmentalists' interests.
Here is a documentary on this that I keep meaning to watch (I think they are coming out with #2).
There will always be people on both sides of the argument. Both will accuse either side of lying and making up their own facts to support their arguments.
We live in Canada and sometimes smugly look down on our American neighbors and see how things there can often be 'bought' by lobbyists for pushing what the big corporations want to do. However, it also does happen here in Canada. Canada also has a track record of putting the $$$ in front of not only the environment, but also the health of its' people.
I remember watching a documentary years ago on the oilsands up north, about a Native population that live along the Athabasca river. That community had something like 400 or 500x the rate of cancer - young people started dying from cancer. They blamed the oil companies, and the government sent out their environmental scientist. He measured a number of things (including the Athabasca) and concluded everything was at safe levels. Tribe didn't buy it, and hired their own environmental scientist. He said: "Don't drink the water, don't eat the fish." Turned out it was highly toxic.
What side do you believe? People need to protest things at times, as it is the only way to at least get their voices heard.
I don't know much about fracking, but it seems it is 'bad' enough to gain a lot of environmentalists' interests.
Here is a documentary on this that I keep meaning to watch (I think they are coming out with #2).
There will always be people on both sides of the argument. Both will accuse either side of lying and making up their own facts to support their arguments.
We live in Canada and sometimes smugly look down on our American neighbors and see how things there can often be 'bought' by lobbyists for pushing what the big corporations want to do. However, it also does happen here in Canada. Canada also has a track record of putting the $$$ in front of not only the environment, but also the health of its' people.
I remember watching a documentary years ago on the oilsands up north, about a Native population that live along the Athabasca river. That community had something like 400 or 500x the rate of cancer - young people started dying from cancer. They blamed the oil companies, and the government sent out their environmental scientist. He measured a number of things (including the Athabasca) and concluded everything was at safe levels. Tribe didn't buy it, and hired their own environmental scientist. He said: "Don't drink the water, don't eat the fish." Turned out it was highly toxic.
What side do you believe? People need to protest things at times, as it is the only way to at least get their voices heard.
So, instead of ~400/100k cancer rate, the native population along the Athabasca river has a cancer rate of 160k/100k? That's gotta blow.
Cite your sources. Maybe during the process you learn something. Maybe. Probably not.
I just watched Fracknation and it appears to debunk all of what Gasland stated. Fracking has been occurring since the 1950s, I believe it is fracking the shale gas that is the new part.
Interesting debate, but I don't think the gas companies have a chance to sway public perception- facts don't always hold up against emotions.
So, instead of ~400/100k cancer rate, the native population along the Athabasca river has a cancer rate of 160k/100k? That's gotta blow.
Cite your sources. Maybe during the process you learn something. Maybe. Probably not.
I was looking at a Canadian cancer study and in 2013 187500 people in Canada were diagnosed with cancer. Out of a population of 30 million it works out to a 0.00625 percentage which when applied to 100000 people means that 625 out of 100000 Canadian will be diagnosed with cancer this year.
I have a lot of problems with the figures that were put in place with the 4 to 500 x cancer rate in those areas.
So right there I have problems with the documentary and its accuracy vs fear mongering.
As far as the protests go, nobody has a right to violent protest, just like they can't get all butt hurt when the RCMP turn up to enforce a legal court order to clear a illegal blockade.
The minute protests get violent, they kind of lose a bit of credibility with me.
There are far too many professional protestors in this country that just want to raise hell.
I know there's no chance of a judge throwing these people in prison, they'll be out blocking roads and burning police cars in the name of something that they don't understand in no time.
I was looking at a Canadian cancer study and in 2013 187500 people in Canada were diagnosed with cancer. Out of a population of 30 million it works out to a 0.00625 percentage which when applied to 100000 people means that 625 out of 100000 Canadian will be diagnosed with cancer this year.
I have a lot of problems with the figures that were put in place with the 4 to 500 x cancer rate in those areas.
So right there I have problems with the Opinion Piece and its accuracy vs fear mongering.
Fix, these things are not documentaries. They have an opinion and work the film around showing that opinion is true.
Watch TruthLand, made to debunk the Gasland fear mongering.
Not to be prickish, but that documentary really doesn't show anything. In fact, it's hyperbole and truth hiding is matched only by gasland.
The "Aww shucks" farmers on the video are not that compelling when you realize it's a scripted rebuttal from an agency hired by the companies that do the fracking...
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
I was looking at a Canadian cancer study and in 2013 187500 people in Canada were diagnosed with cancer. Out of a population of 30 million it works out to a 0.00625 percentage which when applied to 100000 people means that 625 out of 100000 Canadian will be diagnosed with cancer this year.
I have a lot of problems with the figures that were put in place with the 4 to 500 x cancer rate in those areas.
So right there I have problems with the documentary and its accuracy vs fear mongering.
We're not talking about cancer in general here.
Most pollutants have estrogenic or other hormonal effects on the body, leading to reproductive cancers. I have not seen any documentaries, but I've heard there is a large increase in reproductive cancers there, which seems fairly reasonable to assume when so many polyaromatic hydrocarbons are released. I'm not sure how you could avoid it there, though I'm not totally familiar with the process
Not to be prickish, but that documentary really doesn't show anything. In fact, it's hyperbole and truth hiding is matched only by gasland.
The "Aww shucks" farmers on the video are not that compelling when you realize it's a scripted rebuttal from an agency hired by the companies that do the fracking...
The use of legitimate experts in the field, as well as the head of the EPA, tends to sway me more than the pure BS that is Gasland. I realize this is a big oil sponsored piece. It is the pure reciprocal of Gasland, which is why I posted it.
We are way off topic anyway, there is no fracking being done in that area currently. They are currently only attempting to do exploratory drilling.
Most pollutants have estrogenic or other hormonal effects on the body, leading to reproductive cancers. I have not seen any documentaries, but I've heard there is a large increase in reproductive cancers there, which seems fairly reasonable to assume when so many polyaromatic hydrocarbons are released. I'm not sure how you could avoid it there, though I'm not totally familiar with the process
The alarming thing in Fort Chip is that there was a huge amount of bile duct cancer which is a very rare type of cancer.
No mention of the fact that perhaps a lot of people share the same genes given they are a remote self sustaining community.
Here's an article with some background on the situation in NB.
Quote:
Currently we’re just in the beginning stages of a scientific understanding of ‘fracking’. In N.B. there have been only a couple of wells processed using this controversial technology, and there have been NO health or environmental impact studies initiated around these well sites. So, as it stands now, we have no way of knowing through a research-based approach what the impacts have or may be. The Council of Scientific Society Presidents, representing 1.4 million scientists from more than 150 scientific disciplines says,“some energy bridges that are currently encouraged in the transition from GHG-emitting fossil energy systems have received inadequate scientific analysis before implementation, and these may have greater GHG emissions and environmental costs than often appreciated.” The development of unconventional gas from shale deposits, the Council warns, is an “example where policy has preceded adequate scientific study.”
Industry characterizes the process proposed for N.B. as proven for over six decades, but “What they fail to say is that they’ve had fewer than 10 years of experience on a large scale using these unconventional methods to develop gas from shale…” -Dr. Anthony Ingraffea
I think there may be a lot of BS going on from both sides.
