Concerned health professionals of New York release fracking compendium

The Concerned Health Professionals of New York just released a compendium that compiles a significant body of scientific, medical and journalistic findings that highlight the experienced health risks associated with the process of Unconventional Shale Gas Extraction.

One of the most thorough reports of its kind, the compendium draws upon scientific evidence and experience from across the globe, including USA, Canada and Australia, where Unconventional Shale Gas Extraction has been most predominant, drawing upon information provided by medical journals such as The Lancet, the British Medical Journal and the Medical Journal of Australia.

Topics covered by the compendium include:

  • Air Contamination
  • Water Contamination
  • Engineering Problems
  • Radioactive releases
  • Occupational Health and Safety Hazards
  • Noise pollution, light pollution and stress
  • Earthquakes and Seismic Activity
  • Abandoned wells
  • Flood risks
  • Threats to Agriculture and soil quality
  • Threats to the Climate
  • Inaccurate job claims, increased crime
  • Inflated oil and gas reserves
  • Medical and scientific calls for more study

A compilation of studies and findings from around the globe, the compendium provides irrefutable evidence of the risks, harms, and associated negative trends demonstrated by the process of Unconventional Shale Gas Extraction, a process earmarked for County Fermanagh.

To read the compendium in full, click here.

Fracking wastewater dumped in manchester canal

MP Kate Green has demanded to know why fracking waste water was dumped in Manchester Canal.
Her press release states:

“Kate has demanded answers on how waste water from fracking was dumped into the Manchester Ship Canal.
A BBC Inside Out programme, shown on Monday 27th January, reported that that radioactive water from Cuadrilla’s fracking operations was handled at United Utilities treatment works in Davyhulme and, after treatment, released into the Manchester Ship Canal.
A Freedom of Information request has found that, before October 2011, waste water from fracking was treated at Davyhulme.
This was before the Environment Agency told Cuadrilla that, because of changes to rules on the levels of radioactivity in the waste water that would be permitted, they required a permit to continue to take the excess water produced from fracking to a waste water treatment works.
Last autumn United Utilities told Kate that none of their treatment sites were named in any permit applications to the Environment Agency to transport and treat fracking flowback waste water.

Kate has now written to the Chief Executive at United Utilities to ask how much radioactive waste water from fracking was treated at Davyhulme before the regulations changed, and how much waste was released into the Manchester Ship Canal or elsewhere.
Kate said, “I am extremely concerned that radioactive waste water has been released into our local waterways.Local residents are rightly worried, which is why I have written to the Chief Executive of United Utilities to ask for a full explanation of their involvement with waste water from fracking. Full and open disclosure from Cuadrilla and United Utilities is essential so that we can get to the bottom of why this has happened.
The technology around fracking remains unproved, and it shouldn’t be going ahead when serious question marks exist around its safety and environmental impact.”

DEP fines Carrizo $192,044 for fracking offences

On the 18th June, 2014, the Department of Environmental Protection fined Carrizo subsidiary for two 2013 offences related to unconventional shale gas extraction practices.

The first was a well control incident in March 2013, which led to 200,000 gallons of fracking waste water into local environment, an incident which led to the evacuation of three families from their homes.

The second incident which took place from a separate pad, occurred month later in April 2013 when 9240 gallons of produced water was released into local environment.

The $192,044 fine covers both 2013 offences.

“These were serious incidents that resulted in environmental degradation and the evacuation of citizens from their homes,” DEP Director of District Oil and Gas Operations John Ryder said. “The department has been working closely with Carrizo during the past year to ensure the company implements changes that will greatly minimize a recurrence of these incidents.”

The first accident, the well control incident, came during the fracking of a well in Washington Township, when production fluid began escaping from the gas well because of a technical defect.

In response to the leak, which bled around 800 gallons of fluid per hour, Carrizo implemented a temporary containment system for the escaping fluid. They removed escaped fluid with vacuum trucks and commissioned a control specialist to respond to the site. The company recovered 5,400 gallons of production fluid from the well. With Carrizo having release 200,000 gallons in total, a recovery of 5,400 gallons equates to a recovery yield of only 2.7%.

However, due to the toxicity of the chemical that were released from the damaged well, Carrizo was forced to issue evacuation notices to four local households, which lead to three families in the area being evacuated in anticipation of natural gas being released from the well as the accident was brought under control. In response to the accident, the company implemented several staffing and technical improvements, including the hiring of a worker to monitor for leaks during the actual fracking process.

The second accident, occurred when a hose transferring fracking fluid into a tank became unsecure and released about 9,200 gallons of the material off the well pad, as a result of Carrizo employees who had not followed proper procedure in transferring the fluid.

The fluid migrated through the stone foundation of a nearby residence and leaked into a basement garage, and also traveled across the road into a field housing livestock.

The DEP stated in a press release that:

“DEP’s Oil and Gas Program staff requested Carrizo to sample potentially impacted residential and agricultural water supplies, and provide potable drinking water to them, which Carrizo did. The company also implemented a number of remediation measures in a timely manner.

The department issued a notice of violation letter to Carrizo on May 7, 2013 for violations of the Clean Streams Law, Solid Waste Management Act, and Chapter 78 oil and gas regulations. The letter also required that a sampling plan, engineering study and fluid handling analysis be submitted.

Carrizo’s response indicated that personnel conducting the fluid transfer operation failed to follow proper procedure.

DEP’s Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields program is overseeing the remediation at both well pads. Contaminated soil has been excavated and properly disposed, while periodic groundwater sampling by Carrizo continues.”

Fracking rig blowout in morgan county, ohio

NBC4 have reported a blowout of a shale well that not only forced residents to move from their homes, but the 184 barrels of drilling mud that was lost, made its way into local waterways.

NBC4 reported: The drilling operation has been stopped dead in its tracks, as dozens of people from several federal, state and private organizations clean and remove the drilling fluids.

The US Environmental Protection Agency said in a pollution report, “a pocket of unexpected natural gas was encountered during the drilling leading to over-pressurization of the casing leading to the failure of the well head and release. Natural gas was also released causing an explosive atmosphere leading to dangerous working conditions and the evacuation of 7 residents from 3 homes adjacent to the site.”

NBC4 checked with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources who approve, permit and inspect all gas and oil drilling throughout the state. A little digging shows ODNR rules require a blowout preventer on oil and gas wells, which might have prevented the blowout and a containment pad big enough to hold a large spill.

To read the NBC4 article in full, click here.

‘Lancet’ medical journal raises detrimental health implications of fracking

One of the world’s oldest and best known peer-reviewed medical journal, The Lancet, released a paper highlighting the realised risks that unconventional shale gas extraction poses to public human health.

The Lancet states that despite scientific study of the health effects of fracking being in its infancy, “findings suggest that this form of extraction might increase health risks compared with conventional oil and gas extraction [due to] larger surface footprints of fracking sites; their close proximity to locations where people live, work and play; and the need to transport and store large volumes of materials.”

The article further states that investigation into unconventional shale gas extraction in the USA has shown that, “risks of environmental contamination occur at all stages in the development of shale gas extraction.”

Problems with the structural integrity of the process, which is planned for county Fermanagh include: failure of well cement and casing, surface spills and leakage from above ground storage, gas emissions from gas processing equipment, and the large number of transport vehicles involved with transporting large volumes of chemicals.

The article draws attention and concern to detrimental health effects locally and globally. Locally, environmental contaminants such as volatile organic compounds, tropospheric ozone, diesel particulate matter, benzene, hydrocarbons, endocrine disrupting chemicals and heavy metals.

Globally, environmental threats to public health is the “contribution of shale gas extraction to green house gas emissions, and thus, climate change.”

In conclusion, the Lancet have recommended the implementation of Health Impact Assessments (HIA) that take into consideration not only public health risks during development of unconventional shale gas extraction, but the legacy left for public health over the long term also.

If you wish to read the peer reviewed article titled, “The health implications of fracking”, click here.

Landmark $3million fracking law suit, Texas

A family from Wise county, Texas, were awarded $3 million in their legal battle against Aruba Energy for environmental pollution of the air, water and soils from Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction activities (UGEE) that proved to have detrimental impacts on the quality of the family’s health.

Mason and cattle rancher by trade, Bob Parr built his home on his 40-acre estate in 2001. In 2007 his then wife to be Lisa Parr moved in with her daughter and the couple married in 2008. Until this point, the family of three experienced no unusual health effects from their local environment.

After 2008 however, significant gas drilling operations took place around Parr’s 40 acre estate. Soon after, the family began experiencing health effects such as rashes, nausea, vomiting, bleeding noses, as well as environmental damage to their estate and livestock.

It was around 2010 when the Parr family seen an environmental health specialist, who found unusually high traces of specific natural gas related chemicals in their systems, including ethylbenzene and m,p-Xylene.

“We can’t drink our well water,” said Parr in 2011. “We can’t breathe the air without getting sick.”
Parr

The Parr’s filed their lawsuit on 17th september 2013. Item 16 states that as a result of UGEE operations the family suffered environmental contamination of air, water and soils as a result of sudden and continual chemical releases, spills, emissions and discharges of hazardous chemicals which lead to ailments including but not limited to unreasonable fear, impairment and exacerbation of physical health, nausea, loss of peace of mind, damage to livestock, and inability to enjoy their own environment.

Item 18 states that the environmental pollution facilitated by Aruba was as a result of operations related to UGEE including, but not limited to: Vehicles and engines, construction and trucking activity, pits, condensate tanks, dehydrators, flaring, venting, fugitive emissions and the hydraulic fracturing process, also known as fracking.

In the law suit, Item 21 states that the Parr family were under constant environmental abuse by Aruba and its discharge of chemicals, before Item 21 lists experienced health effects in more detail, including but not limited to: open sores around he eyes, nose and rest of body, permanent scarring, chronic nose bleeds, migranes, drowsiness, irregular heart beat, depression, ataxia, abdominal pains, arrhythmia, and anisocoria

Items 29-34 state clearly that Aruba Energy had performed their duties with negligence, which lead to the fact that the Parr family were able to come into contact with the hazardous chemicals.

Item 41 holds Aruba negligent towards the Parr family, before accusing Aruba in Item 44 of recklessness, oppression, fraud, malice and wilfulness to pollute the land with hazardous chemicals. Item 29 to 75 state that the Parr family had suffered gross negligence, negligence, private nuisance and trespass to property. You can read the full legal document here.

After winning their case in court after a three year legal battle, the Parr family attributed some of their success to the fact that they documented their ordeal on a daily basis, documentation that supported their case in front of a jury. The Parr family expect Aruba to appeal the decision.

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

Of strong concern on the environmental safety of unconventional shale gas extraction, is the possible contamination of sub-surface ground waters by extensive USGE operations. A 2011 study in northeastern Pennsylvania by Osborne et al has found that as concentrations of methane gas increased with proximity to gas wells undergoing high volume hydraulic fracturing. Water wells showed elevated levels of methane in wells located near (1 km) from the drilled areas had much lower methane concentrations. Osborne’s findings also show that in some instances, methane concentration was at a state that rendered the water explosive. Furthermore, the methane gas was found to be thermogenic in nature released form shale rock by unconventional shale gas extraction.

Fig1.

The report investigated the Catskill and Lockhaven formations that overlie the marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania State, and the Genesee group that overlies the Utica Shale in the State of New York as depicted below.

Fig2

The study sampled groundwaters from 68 private water wells that ranged from 36-190 meters deep. Measurements were taken of dissolved salts, water isotopes as well as other dissolved constituents. However, 60 of the 68 wells were tested for dissolved gas concentrations of methane and other organic hydrocarbons.

Methane concentrations were found in 85% (51 out of 60) of the drinking water wells. For wells located in close proximity to active unconventional gas extraction wells, methane concentrations found to be around 17 times higher than drinking wells located further away from gas extraction operations. Whilst the average methane concentrations across all samples were found to be under the defined action level for hazard mitigation (10-28 mg per litre), the highest observed value of 64 mg per litre is well above the hazard line as shown below.

fig3

The U.S. Department of the Interior, advises owners of wells with dissolved methane concentrations greater than 28 mg/L to “immediately contact their local county health department to obtain assistance and guidance in venting the wellhead and for other possible remediation alternatives.”, due to the explosivity of the water. As can be seen above, samples from nine active gas extraction areas meet that criteria.

Furthermore, owners of wells with methane concentrations greater than 10 mg/L but less than 28 mg/L are recommended to “contact their local county health department for further assistance and might consider removing ignition sources from the immediate area.”

However methane concentrations less than 10 mg/L require no action, other than periodic monitoring to assess changes in concentration over time.

Methane gas can exist naturally as ‘biogenic‘ gas, and it has been argued that relatively high methane in this part of the Appalachian Basin is due to natural flux of methane and is not linked to the shale gas drilling. However whilst biogenic gas can exist in waters naturally, the methane gas associated with unconventional shale gas extraction is ‘thermogenic‘ in nature. Understanding the origin of the methane is of importance as it helps determine the source of contamination.

As a result, Osborne et al had to determine wether or not the methane concentrations found in the private drinking water wells were as a natural result of biogenic sythnesis, or anthropogenic release due to unconventional shale gas extraction.

fig3.1

fig3.2

They found that the water wells that lay in close proximity to active gas extraction areas were contaminated with thermogenic methane, peaking at 64mg per litre as shown in graph (A) above. Conversely, private drinking water wells in non active extraction areas were found to have much lower concentrations of dissolved biogenic methane gas.

The task to separate methane sources and thus the distinction between natural flux and anthropogenic contamination is based on the different isotopic and geochemical compositions of thermogenic relative to biogenic methane sources. It was shown that the elevated methane in drinking water wells near the shale gas wells had a thermogenic composition (e.g., heavier) than wells located 1 km away from shale gas sites with an apparent mixed thermogenic-biogenic composition.

In regards to ethane and other higher-chain hydrocarbons contamination of those analytes were found in only 3 of 34 drinking-water wells from nonactive drilling sites. In stark contrast however, ethane was detected in 21 of 26 drinking-water wells in active drilling sites. Further to this, trace contamination of other gas extraction related analytes, such as propane and butane were also detected from active drilling areas, but not in wells from nonactive areas.

The investigation did not find any evidence of brine or fracking fluid contamination. Furthermore, they found no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids and salt concentrations in wells from active drilling areas were consistent with the baseline historical data and levels of radon were indistinguishable between active and inactive gas extraction areas.

In short, the geochemical and isotopic fingerprint for water measured in the shallow wells from both active and nonactive areas are consistent with historical data and inconsistent with contamination from mixing Marcellus Shale formation water or saline fracturing fluids as shown below.

table2

Leaky gas-well casings were considered as a transport mechanisms that promote contamination. Another transport mechanism considered was the formation of new fractures improving connectivity rapid migration as a result of reduced pressure.

In conclusion, the main findings of the peer reviewed report found that methane concentrations not only increased in proximity to active gas wells, but results reflect that contamination of methane gas in the water was thermogenic in nature, and therefore released by unconventional shale gas extraction.

You may read the peer reviewed paper here.

***

References

1) Osborne.S, Vengosh.A, Warner.N, Jackson.R. (2011). Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. PNAS. 108 (20), 8172-8176.

2) USGE. (2006). Methane IN West Virginia Water. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3011/. Last accessed 25/03/2014.

3) Molofsky LJ, Connor JA, Farhat SK, Wylie AS, Jr, Wagner T. Methane in Pennsylvania water wells unrelated to Marcellus shale fracturing. Oil Gas J 2011; 109: 54–67

4) Van Stempvoort D, Maathuis H, Jaworski E, Mayer B, Rich K (2005) Oxidation of fugitive methane in groundwater linked to bacterial sulfate reduction. Ground Water 43:187–199.

5) Cramer B, Schlomer S, Poelchau HS (2002) Uplift-related hydrocarbon accumulations: the release of natural gas from groundwater. 196 (Geological Society Special Publica- tions, London), 447–455.

Los Angeles – Largest U.S. city to approve fracking ban

On 28th of February, the city of Los Angeles placed a moratorium on unconventional shale gas extraction (USGE), making it the largest city in the United States to do so.

The city of L.A. City council voted unanimously to ban the practice within city limits, 10-0. The L.A. ordinance prevents operation of USGE until effective government oversight and regulation is in place at local, state, and federal levels. The motion, brought forward by councilmen Koretz and Bonin will hold in place until verification that USGE does not pollute the ground waters of the city. The council curbed “all activity associated with well stimulation, including, but not limited to, hydraulic fracturing, gravel packing, and acidizing, or any combination thereof, and the use of waste disposal injection wells.”

“Until these radical methods of oil and gas extraction are at the very least covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act, until chemicals are disclosed and problems are honestly reported, until we’re safe from earthquakes, until our atmosphere is safe from methane leaks, we need a fracking moratorium,” said Councilman Koretz.

fracking-calif-map

The moratorium was met with applause. Liz Crosson, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper said, “While state oil and gas regulators drag their feet on enforcing existing rules and taking adequate precaution for the health of our communities, rivers and ocean, L.A. residents suffer from what is already occurring at the nation’s largest urban oil field and in communities throughout the city,”. She further stated, “We don’t know all of the chemicals oil companies are exposing us to when they frack in our neighborhoods, but we know enough to know we don’t want them in our air or in our water.”

There will now be an attempt to introduce a ban on USGE and related activities across the state of California.

***

References

1) Reyes, E. (2014). L.A. City Council takes step toward fracking ban. Available: http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0301-fracking-ban-20140301,0,6285538.story#axzz2xCYvuYPq. Last accessed 27/03/2014.

2) Russia Today. (2014). Los Angeles becomes largest US city to prohibit fracking. Available: http://rt.com/usa/los-angeles-fracking-ban-290/. Last accessed 27/03/2014.

3) Sustainable Business. (2014). Los Angeles Bans Fracking. Available: http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25555. Last accessed 27/03/2014.

4) Baker, B. (2014). Los Angeles Passes Fracking Moratorium. Available: http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/28/breaking-los-angeles-passes-fracking-moratorium/. Last accessed 27/04/2014.

Californian almond farm ruined by fracking company operations

In January 2010, a farmer was awarded USD$8.5million damages by an unconventional shale gas extraction (USGE) company that had been found guilty of contaminating local waters that had accessed his farmland.

Farmer Fred Starrh of Kern County, California owns 6,000 acres of farmland that harvested pistachios, alfalfa, cotton and almonds.

Oil and Gas company Aera Energy are estimated to have dumped 2.4billion barrels of ‘produced’ fracking waste water into unlined percolation ponds on the edge of Mr Starrh’s land.

Mr Starrh noticed the environmental damage after he mixed his ground water with local aqueduct water that watered his cotton plants, before they wilted heavily. The water also killed off almond trees that he had managed to farm at 155 per acre.

Mr Starrh had considered that contaminants of the produced frack waste water could have caused the pollution. Well waters within his land were tested and were found to be positive for boron and chloride – two chemicals associated with the USGE callied out by Aera Energy, a joint venture between Shell and Exxon Mobil.

After a nine year court case, Mr Starrh was awarded $8.5million in damages by Kern County Court. However, despite winning his case against Aera Energy, Starrh appealed the court decision, stating that, as a result of the damage caused by Aera, he will need as much as $2 billion to rehabilitate his land and construct terraced ponds to properly “flush” his soil and groundwater of toxins.

Mr Starrh was in court again last year as a jury retired on 8th March 2013 to determine wether Mr Starrh be awarded further punitive damages from Aera Energy in order to fully remediate his land.

As a result of previous findings about Aera’s responsibility for the pollution, much of the case has revolved around the usefulness of Starrh’s native groundwater with regard to irrigation.

Aera’s lead attorney, Stephen Kristovich recalled testimony that the area’s groundwater has long been understood to be too salty and with too much boron to work on crops, hence the farming boom that arrived with the California Aqueduct in the 1960s.

Starrh’s attourney Ralph Wegis countered by referencing studies suggesting that at least 20 different crops can live on Starrh’s native groundwater.

In a practice he called ‘devoid of morals’, Wegis drew attention to Aera’s use of an accounting concept known as “net present value” to make, or help make, strategic decisions. By using the system, Wegis claimed Aera used net present value to determine that it was more profitable over the long run — even in the event of a jury’s award of punitive damages — to let the groundwater pollution continue into Mr Starrh’s farmland, rather than offer remediative or preventative measures.

Kristovich responded by saying that net present value has been just one of many criteria guiding Aera’s decisions, and that the others include environmental responsibility. He added, “There’s nothing wrong with using economics and using that as part of your decision-making process.”

In his rebuttal, Wegis told the jury that Aera decided it was in its best financial interest to wait rather than stop the pollution.

The jury returned 13th March 2013 to deny Mr Starrh further punitive damages, stating that Aera Energy’s contamination of the adjacent aquifer was accidental.

Mr Starrh was dissapointed in the result, “I was totally devastated, that’s all,” Starrh said. “I couldn’t accept it from a personal perspective.”

Mr Starrh and his attourney Ralph Wegis will re-appeal the decision.
Fred starrh
***

References

1) Millar, J. (2010). Oil and Water Don’t Mix with California Agriculture. Available: http://www.hcn.org/issues/42.21/oil-and-water-dont-mix-with-california-agriculture. Last accessed 17/04/2010

2) The Bakersfield Californian. (2013). Aera-Starrh lawsuit goes to jury. Available: http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/x837007080/Aera-Starrh-lawsuit-goes-to-jury. Last accessed 17/04/2014.

3)The Bakersfield Californian. (2013). Akern grower gets another bumper crop of disappointment. Available: http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/oil/x738927654/Kern-grower-gets-another-bumper-crop-of-disappointment. Last accessed 17/04/2014.

Canadian government to be sued over Quebec fracking ban

Oil and Gas company, Lone Pine Resources is currently aiming to sue the Canadian Government for CDN$250million, in response to a moratorium placed on unconventional shale gas extraction (USGE) in the provence of Quebec.

Lone Pine Resources had obtained permits relating to oil and gas extraction in different areas, including underneath the length of St. Lawrence River, an area that Lone Pine have calculated to contain between 1,870 – 3,346 billion cubic feet of thermogenic gas. Lone Pine state that the moratorium is an infringement of their right to conduct USGE under the river.

Due to public pressure and scientific studies linking USGE to pollution of air, soils and water, the Quebec Government introduced Bill 18 into the Quebec National Assembly, which revoked all permits related to oil and gas under the St. Lawrence River.

The Bill received Royal Assent and a further document, Bill 37 placed a moratorium on the USGE project in June 2011, which was then expanded to autumn 2012. The moratorium banned drilling under the St. Lawrence river until an environmental evaluation of the potential effects of USGE on the environment were in place.
frack-lonepine
Lone Pine Resources responded on 6th September 2013, with a CDN$250 million notice of arbitration under chapter eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Lone Pine Resources also state that the Government of Quebec have violated their obligations under Article 1110 of NAFTA which provides Lone Pine Resources the right to mine for oil and gas under the St. Lawrence River.

Lone Pine claim that not only were they not consulted on the moratorium or revocation of permits, but neither were they compensated for any money invested into the unconventional shale gas extraction project itself.

In paragragh (10) of the lawsuit, they claim:
“The Act is a clear violation of Canada’s obligations under Chapter Eleven of the NAFTA, including Canada’s obligation under Article 1105 to accord U.S. investors with “treatment in accordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security,” and also of Canada’s obligation under Article 1110 not to expropriate investments of U.S. investors without a public purpose, without due process, and without the payment of compensation.”

Continuing in paragraph (11) of the lawsuit, Lone Pine state that:

“[we] submit[s] this arbitration on bahalf of the Enterprise under Article 1117 of the NAFTA, for the arbitrary, capricious, and illegal revocation of the Enterprise’s valuable right to mine for oil and gas under the St. Lawrence River by the Government of Quebec without due process, without compensation, and with no cognizable public purpose. The Government of Canada is responsible for Quebec’s acts under the NAFTA and applicable principles of international law.”

Furthermore, in paragragh (53):
“Lone Pine Resources hold the Canadian Government to its obligations in under Article 1105 of the NAFTA which obliges Canada “accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment in accordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.”

Lone Pine’s lawsuit has been publicly condemned:

“This egregious lawsuit — which Lone Pine Resources must drop — highlights just how vulnerable public interest policies are as a result of trade and investment pacts,” said Ilana Solomon, Sierra Club Responsible Trade Program Director. “Governments should learn from this and other similar cases and stop writing investment rules that empower corporations to attack environmental laws and policies.”
***

References

1) The Canadian Press. (2012). Ottawa sued over Quebec fracking ban. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ottawa-sued-over-quebec-fracking-ban-1.1140918 . Last accessed 16/04/2014.

2) Bennett Jones LLP. (2013). NOTICE OF ARBITRATION UNDER THE ARBITRATION RULES OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW AND CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT. Available: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/disp-diff/lone-02.pdf. Last accessed 16/04/2014.

3) The Government of Canada. (2013). NAFTA – Chapter 11 – Investment. Cases Filed Against the Government of Canada. Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada. Available: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/lone.aspx?lang=eng. Last accessed 16/04/2014.

4) Byrnes, D and Trew,S.. (2013). LONE PINE RESOURCES FILES OUTRAGEOUS NAFTA LAWSUIT AGAINST FRACKING BAN Canada, Quebec, and U.S. Environmental Groups Denounce Case. Available: http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2013/10/lone-pine-resources-files-outrageous-nafta-lawsuit-against-fracking-ban. Last accessed 16/04/2014.