The fossil fuel industry lobbied the B.C. government more than 22,000 times between April 2010 and October 2016, according to a report released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives as part of the Corporate Mapping Project.

The report also found that 48 fossil fuel companies and associated industry groups have donated $5.2 million to B.C. political parties between 2008 and 2015 — 92 per cent of which has gone to the BC Liberals.

The analysis found seven of the top 10 political donors from the fossil fuel industry are also B.C.’s most active lobbyists.

The Corporate Mapping Project is a six-year research and public engagement initiative jointly led by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Alberta-based Parkland Institute.

Researchers have painstakingly analyzed lobbying and political donation records to demonstrate the extensive political influence of the fossil fuel industry in B.C.

“I was definitely surprised at the sheer volume of lobbying contacts that we found,” Nick Graham, lead author of the report and PhD candidate at the University of Victoria, told DeSmog Canada.

Spectra Energy, Enbridge, FortisBC, Encana, Chevron Canada, CAPP and Teck Resources conducted the majority of registered lobbying contacts, more than 19,500 in total since the lobbyist registry was first initiated in 2010 — an average of 14 lobbying contacts in B.C. per day.

“We were expecting to see some overlap between political donations and lobbying,” Graham said. “Part of what donations help achieve is access to government so we certainly expected to see some of that.”

The top 10 fossil fuel industry donors were responsible for $3.8 million in contributions to the BC Liberals and $270,000 to the BC NDP.

The Corporate Mapping Project report, co-authored by Shannon Daub of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Bill Carroll, professor of sociology at the University of Victoria, is the first systematic analysis of fossil fuel lobbying in B.C.

Top 10 fossil fuel industry donors in B.C. Source: CCPA, Corporate Mapping Project.

Clear Connection Between Lobbying, Donations and Policy Outcomes

“There is a fairly clear connection between lobbying, donations and policy outcomes that is quite troubling,” Daub told DeSmog Canada.

“It can be difficult to draw a line between a political donation or a meeting and policy because so little information is released to the public about what is going on behind closed doors,” Daub said.

But, she added, a more broad analysis like this can help connect the dots.

“We did note the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, for example, in a one year period between October 2015 and August 2016, reported 201 lobbying contacts with the provincial government specifically in relation to the climate leadership plan.”

“And of course that plan turned out to not be much of a plan at all,” Daub added.

The analysis found 28 per cent of lobbying by the top fossil fuel lobbyists was with cabinet ministers.

Several cabinet ministers were the frequent target of lobbying contacts, the most popular being Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman, who was listed in 733 contacts with the top 10 fossil fuel firms.

The other most contacted senior ministers are Premier Christy Clark (618 contacts), Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett (437), Environment Minister Mary Polak (354) and Finance Minister Mike de Jong (330).

“It really does speak to the development of these close relationships,” Graham said. “You do see particular firms heavily targeting individuals. There is this really tight, if not cozy, ongoing relationship that develops and the perspective of the two become quite closely aligned.”

Companies such as Encana, with significant operations in B.C.’s natural gas plays focused heavily on lobbying Natural Gas Development Minister Coleman, the analysis found.

Source: CCPA, Corporate Mapping Project

Corporate Influence Far Outweighs Environmental Voices

Graham added the analysis was shaped in part by the B.C. government’s push for increased extractive industry projects in the province for nearly the last decade.

“The paper began from the perspective of seeing this really incredible push around expanding fossil fuel development in the province especially around natural gas and the really aggressive promotion of the LNG industry in particular by the government.”

“Part of our question was, ‘how can we explain this? What explains this?’ ” Graham said.

“What we found are there are multiple explanations that point to the structural power of industry and the provincial government’s reliance on resource rent. But also major corporate influence: the ability of corporations to have these stores of capital to pressure government on an ongoing basis.”

The analysis found a total of 1,300 lobby contacts between the government and environmental or non-governmental organizations during the same timeframe.

Daub said there is clearly not level access to provincial decision-makers in B.C.

“What shows really clearly from these numbers is that we have one industry with a very disproportionate level of access to government and government policy,” she said.

B.C.’s Ongoing Transparency Problem

B.C. has some of the weakest political donation rules in the country, which allow unlimited donations from individuals, foreigners, corporations and unions.

“Clearly it’s just time to ban big money in politics all together. One of the recommendations in our report is to put a stop to corporate and union donations and a cap on individual contributions.”

Federally, political parties cannot accept donations from corporations or unions and provinces like Quebec place a $100 limit on personal donations.

“It’s supposed to be one person, one vote,” Daub said. “Instead in B.C. it’s more like one dollar, one vote.”

A level democratic playing field is important for the public to have confidence in the political system but also to feel they can meaningfully participate in the process, Daub said.

Beyond problems with special interest dollars flooding the political process, B.C. also has poor transparency requirements when it comes to lobbying.

Lobbyists must register to lobby in B.C. and provide a list of intended meetings. However, there is no official record kept that distinguishes between intended and actual meetings.

Any meetings requested by public officials are not registered.

In addition, lobby records do not give the public detailed information about the content of meetings.

“Teck is one of the biggest lobbyists in the province among industry groups and they have a particular focus on MLAs,” Daub said. “But what they report they’ve lobbied on is things like ‘mining,’ or ‘employment and training’ or ‘aboriginal affairs.’ ”

“That doesn’t tell us anything about what they’re actually talking to these public officials about.”

Daub said better records should be kept of lobbying interactions that gives the public a decent account of when and how frequently these meetings are taking place and what public policy matters are at stake.

“A more transparent system would make it much easier for the public to find out what is going on in these closed door meetings.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This article originally appeared on The Tyee.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled Jessica Ernst can’t sue the powerful and controversial Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) over alleged violations of her Charter rights.

The split ruling Friday — five justices rejected her claim, with four supporting it — is a setback for the protection of groundwater and the rights of landowners dealing with provincial energy regulators, often funded or captured by industry interests, say many critics and lawyers.

The majority, led by Justice Thomas Cromwell, upheld an immunity clause passed by the legislature that protects the Alberta Energy Regulator from any Charter claims or lawsuits.

In 2007, Ernst, an oil patch environmental consultant, sued the Alberta government, Encana and the regulator for negligence over the contamination of local aquifers near her Rosebud home allegedly caused by the hydraulic fracturing of shallow gas wells in 2004.

Alberta Regulator 'Sought to Punish' Ernst for Her Public Criticisms

After Alberta courts ruled that Ernst could sue the government but not the regulator because of an immunity clause (Encana never contested the lawsuit), Ernst took that part of her case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Her lawyers, along with the BC Civil Liberties Union and David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, argued in January 2016 that no regulatory body had the right to block citizens from seeking remedies for violations of their fundamental Charter rights and that no citizen should be unfairly silenced by Canada’s energy boards.

Alberta’s Energy Regulator accused Ernst of “criminal threats” in a 2005 letter and refused to communicate when she persistently asked embarrassing questions about the effectiveness of its enforcement actions on noise pollution and water contamination related to the fracking of shallow coal seams near her home.

According to Ernst’s original statement of claim, an AER lawyer admitted during a taped interview with her in 2007 that the board never considered Ernst a criminal threat but felt “humiliated” by her public criticisms of its abusive conduct. That exchange was witnessed by Liberal MLA David Swann.

The five justices in the Supreme Court majority concluded that immunity clauses are in the interests of “good governance.”

“Opening the Board to damages claims could deplete the Board’s resources, distract it from its statutory duties, potentially have a chilling effect on its decision making, compromise its impartiality, and open up new and undesirable modes of collateral attack on its decisions,” they wrote.

But four dissenting judges, including Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, took the opposite view.

“We see no compelling policy rationale to immunize state actors in all cases, including where, as here, the impugned conduct is said to have been ‘punitive’ in nature,” they wrote. “To be precise, what Ms. Ernst alleges is that the Board, far from exercising an adjudicative function, effectively sought to punish her by barring access to those functions so long as she continued to criticize the Board in public.”

Ernst: 'All Canadians Have Lost in This Decision'

The Supreme Court decision is the latest chapter in a costly 10-year legal fight that has focused attention on regulation of the disruptive and chaotic technology of hydraulic fracturing.

“All Canadians have lost in this decision,” Ernst told The Tyee. “Whenever any Canadian is harmed by pipelines or fracking and they present evidence of harm to a regulator and then that regulator ignores or denies that evidence, citizens can no longer sue for justice.”

“I believe that split decision will generate a lot of debates among lawyers and judges across the country,” added Ernst. “I think some good will come from this terrible decision on a level we can’t yet imagine. I will keep going until I run out of money or die or whatever comes first.”

Cory Wanless, one of Ernst’s lawyers, said the split decision makes it difficult to fathom what the Supreme Court really means. Four judges supported the immunity clause; one raised separate constitutional issues in rejecting Ernst’s case; and four argued in favour of her right to sue the AER. “The whole issue will have to be resolved another day,” Wanless said.

In press release on Friday, the Alberta Energy Regulator hailed the Supreme Court decision as an important one for regulators across the country. It added that, “The Court did not find there was a breach of Ms. Ernst’s Charter rights, and made no findings of negligence on the part of the AER or its predecessor the Energy Resources Conservation Board.”

But the Supreme Court decision was not related to either of those points. It instead ruled that an immunity clause protected the regulator from Charter claims, but that “judicial review is an alternative, and more effective, remedy for Charter breaches by the Board.”

In fact, no court in Alberta or Canada has yet allowed or asked to hear the full evidence on Ernst’s Charter breaches, including extensive interview transcripts that document the regulator’s behaviour.

The AER press release also noted that court’s decision recognized “that permitting the claim would hinder the AER’s ability to carry out its statutory duties effectively and in the public interest.”

Yet new legislation in 2013 removed “public interest” from AER’s mandate. It is now a corporation largely funded by industry.

Jessica Ernst Loses Landmark Supreme Court Case Against #Alberta #Fracking Regulator in 5-4 Ruling https://t.co/GUyB6qX42I #ableg #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 15, 2017

Lawyers Concerned Decision Fails to Defend Charter Rights

Ray Anand, a senior constitutional and human rights lawyer in Toronto, said he found the decision baffling. “I didn’t anticipate that none of the nine judges would decide the constitutional issue: whether a legislature can prohibit a constitutional damages claim against an agency of the government.”

In the meantime, Ernst’s lawsuit against the Alberta government and Encana can now proceed through Alberta courts.

After a decade of legal wrangling, Ernst has spent more than $350,000 on a straightforward contamination case and not one piece of evidence has been heard in court.

Other lawyers expressed alarm with the Supreme Court decision.

“With great respect to the Court, we’re disappointed by this decision, which denies Ms. Ernst the ability to use the Charter to defend her right to free expression in this case,” said Laura Track, counsel with the BC Civil Liberties Association, an intervenor in the case.

“The Charter guarantees everyone the right to an appropriate and just remedy if their constitutional rights are violated, but a majority of the Court has now said that, in some circumstances, legislatures may shield certain government administrative decision makers from Charter scrutiny. This decision has worrisome implications for people across the country seeking to hold government-appointed decision makers accountable for egregious unconstitutional actions.”

The decision is a missed opportunity to allow Ernst to seek redress for what she alleges were serious violations of her Charter rights, echoed Lynda Collins of the University of Ottawa’s Centre for Environmental Law and Global Sustainability.

“The behaviour described in her statement of claim represents a serious incursion on her democratic rights, and a disturbing departure from the Board’s environmental protection mandate,” Collins said. “I agree with the dissent that she should have been given the opportunity to make the case for Charter damages.”

Alberta Energy Regulator 'Immunized' from Legal Scrutiny

Shaun Fluker, an associate professor of law at the University of Calgary who has dealt with the AER in court, said the majority Supreme Court decision “simply piles on to the existing list of barriers constructed in the law to immunize the AER from proper legal scrutiny.”

Those existing barriers include the AER’s ability to refuse to hear landowners and other interested members of the public on energy development concerns and the expectation that landowners must fund their legal challenges before one of the nation’s most powerful regulators. “The [Supreme Court] adds to the list by effectively immunizing AER actions from Charter scrutiny,” Fluker said. “This is perhaps a bit of an overstatement, but not by much.”

The dissenting justices noted that the difficult case raised novel and important issues for the entire nation.

“The issues raised by Ms. Ernst’s claim are of significant public importance. The allegations against the Board are serious. She says that the Board abused its powers to punish a citizen and to curtail her freedom of expression, thereby breaching her Charter right. Whether Ms. Ernst may advance a claim for Charter damages against the Board in the face of a statutory immunity clause which may bar such claims will have consequences which extend far beyond the facts of this case.”

The majority justices argued that Ernst should have pressed the AER for a judicial review.

But no such remedy exists, said lawyers familiar with the AER and Alberta law.

In fact a judicial review can only be triggered when the quasi-judicial energy regulator actually makes a regulatory decision, notes Fluker. But in Ernst’s case the board did not exercise any adjudicating function or hold a public hearing.

“There is no policy decision to review here,” said Fluker. Getting a judicial review, he added, would be “next to impossible in Alberta” and would also require the permission of the Court of Appeal.

Avnish Nanda, an Alberta litigation lawyer, tweeted that “Ernst is a good example of why #SCC needs regional balance. Majority + Abella don’t understand Alberta law.”

A 2014 Harvard Law School report on fracking in the U.S. set out a key issue raised by Ernst’s case.

As complaints of water contamination in areas being fracked by industry were rising, regulatory statutes and procedures were “often insufficient to respond adequately to landowner concerns,” the report found.

In addition, hydraulic fracturing has caused thousands of earthquakes in the Western Canadian sedimentary basin, with little or no monitoring of the impact on groundwater and gas migration.

Alberta, home to more than 400,000 oil and gas well sites, still does not have a formal protocol for investigating groundwater contamination as a result of petroleum drilling and fracking.

The AER, which many landowners regard as arbitrary and biased toward unfettered development, is chaired by Gerard Protti, a former energy lobbyist and Encana vice-president.

Image: Jessica Ernst. Photo: Colin Smith

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Christy Clark recently turned down the opportunity to limit foreign and corporate donations to political parties in campaigns. She justified her position by simply stating, “I represent everyone.”   Yet a new poll conducted by Insights West found the vast majority of British Columbians — 86 per cent — support a ban on both corporate and union political donations.   The poll, conducted on behalf of the Dogwood Initiative, a democracy advocacy organization, suggests Clark’s cozy relationship with major foreign and corporate donors could put her in the hot seat leading into the province’s next election.   That seat is likely to be even hotter after revelations Clark takes a cut of funds donated to the B.C. Liberal party through exclusive cash-for-access events that can cost up to $20,000 dollars to attend.   A high percentage of B.C. Liberal donors, 81 per cent, and an even higher number of B.C. NDP voters, 91 per cent, support putting a ban on corporate and union donations before the next election.

B.C. has long been called the “wild west of campaign donations” because, unlike most other provinces in Canada, it has no rules to prevent unlimited, foreign, union and corporate money from pouring into elections.    It’s a problem the Dogwood Initiative would like to see remedied through its Ban Big Money campaign before British Columbians hit the polls in early 2017. The group’s recent House of Cards-esque trailer for the corrupting influence of money in B.C. elections has been viewed on Facebook over 85,000 times.

BC's House of Cash

With apologies to Netflix, here's the high-stakes drama British Columbians can't get enough of: http://BanBigMoney.ca #BanBigMoney

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at Dogwood, said B.C. has created a situation “that has made bribery legal.”   He said the recent spate of arrests of cabinet ministers in Quebec on corruption and fraud charges were for activities “commonplace and totally protected by law in B.C.”   Recent Elections B.C. data on 2015 political donations shows that since 2005 the B.C. Liberal party raised $70.2 million from corporate and business donors. In that same period three donors exceeded donations of one million: Encana Corporation at $1.1 million, the Aquilini Group ($1.2 million) and Teck Resources ($2.3 million).

“So you ask companies, ‘why would you donate that money to a political party?’ It’s not charity; it’s an investment because you get something back,” Nagata said.   “You get policy decidedly tilted in favour of people who are able to fund political campaigns and ordinary citizens have their voices diluted in this process.”   “You go anywhere in this province and it’s hard not to see that virtually everything is for sale,” Nagata said, listing contracts for the Site C dam, B.C.’s trophy hunting, U.S. coal exports, LNG projects and the contemptible Vancouver real estate scene.   “There are a lot of decisions by government —decisions or calculated inaction — that amount to outcomes that are against public interest.”   “In B.C. because laws are so permissive people can donate unlimited amounts of money from overseas,” Nagata said. “So you don’t even have to be from Canada to have a say in public policy in B.C.”   Dermod Travis from IntegrityBC said there are a number of issues with political donations in B.C. that cause him concern.   “The most concerning thing is that money is being donated by corporations and individuals that can’t vote in the province,” Travis said. “If you can’t check a ballot, you shouldn’t be allowed to donate funds.”   Travis said British Columbians are worried about the level of influence companies like Encana and Teck Resources are able to purchase with consistently large donations.   “With Encana you see exactly what kind of sweetheart deals people have come to expect,” he said.   Travis said the BC Liberals consistently award contracts to companies that are party donors.   “Look at the companies that Partnerships B.C. has awarded construction contracts to and you will see a direct correlation between being contracts and being a donor to the BC Liberals.”   “People don’t have enough assurance the government is protecting the public’s interest, rather than corporate interests,” he said.   Travis also criticized the data publicly released by Elections B.C., saying the documents aren’t easily searchable which creates convenient loopholes for individuals who want to mask their donations.   “There are little tricks that get played in the process,” Travis said. “I’ll use my own name as an example: if you were to use the Elections B.C. database and search Dermod Travis any donations I made as Dermod J. Travis would not show up and that’s a problem.”   Both individuals and companies take advantage of this “initial game,” Travis said, “you might be left with the impression it was done deliberately so you couldn’t find their donations.”   He said an outright ban on corporate donations and a strict cap on individual donations would eliminate that problem.   “I think it creates an incredible level of cynicism that’s going to take a long time to remove even with a ban on these types of donations,” Travis said.   “It creates sense that there are winners and losers and the only way to be a winner is to be a donor.”   By leaving donor rules so open, government is fostering a sense of mistrust in the public, Nagata said.   “By refusing to take action to limit corporate money in elections they are leaving the question to voters: is government making decisions on behalf of citizens and in the public interest or are those decisions informed by the amount of money donated to politicians’ campaigns by these large corporations?”   “Obviously you don’t give someone a million dollars and say do whatever you want. There’s an expectation of a quid pro quo,” Nagata said.   “Citizens can’t collectively donate that amount of money to balance that influence — all you have is your vote,” Nagata said. “People don’t even do that because they feel cynical about the whole process.”   “That’s what we see, that’s our diagnosis. It seems the solution is simple: the government could restore public trust by not taking money from these outside influences and ensure they are making decisions on behalf of those who elected them.”

For more on political donations and how they cost taxpayers money, watch Kai Nagata break it down in this video below:  

How corruption can increase your tax bill

B.C.'s weak political donation laws leave the door open to corruption. Corruption destroys democracy and costs taxpayers, too. Join the movement to #BanBigMoney in B.C. politics: www.BanBigMoney.ca

Posted by Dogwood Initiative on Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Image: Province of British Columbia/Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Ben Parfitt, resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It orginially appeared on policynote.ca.

Well, I won’t back down No, I won’t back down You can stand me up at the gates of hell But I won’t back down

— Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty

In the mid 1960s, the world’s two superpowers hit on a novel idea to try to coax more oil and natural gas from the ground. In what they hoped would prompt the release of “endless fountains of fossil fuels,” first the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and then the United States of America detonated nuclear bombs belowground.

The hoped-for geysers of fuel never materialized. Instead, nearby oil and gas wells became contaminated with radioactive gases that in some cases later broke to the surface and swept over the homes of unsuspecting residents. Groundwater was polluted. And giant subterranean craters filled with cancer-inducing gases that no public power utility in its right mind would touch.

The failed experiments of a half-century ago were not, however, a surprise to those who were familiar with mining the earth’s depths for oil and natural gas. If anything, the nuclear detonations were simply part of a continuum that traced back to the mid 1860s in Pennsylvania. Flummoxed by the rapid decline in production from the world’s first intensively drilled oil field, wildcatters embraced the ideas of a Civil War veteran who sent torpedoes underground to stimulate oil flows.

The new technology, the magazine Scientific American enthused, “would fracture the rock, and clear the closed passages or make artificial ones reaching the oil veins.”

Many people would subsequently be blown to bits during well-torpedoing events and later with the use of nitroglycerin as a brute-force mining technology. But more oil flowed, and the era of hydraulic fracturing or fracking was born.

For Andrew Nikiforuk, the brutal antecedents to today’s fracking operations are critical to understanding what is going on now. Contemporary fracking involves pumping massive amounts of water, cancer-causing chemicals, fine-grained sands or artificial “proppants” belowground to fracture gas-bearing rock or coal formations. But the objective is no different than it was back when the industry and government played with nuclear bombs. Brute force is harnessed to fracture rock in an effort to make it let go of the oil and gas it stubbornly holds. And no amount of computer modeling has yet to make sense of how far those cracks or fractures will go or in what direction. “Chaos” reigns. And human life, human health, water, the environment, our climate be damned.

Slick Water: Fracking and One Insider’s Stand Against the World’s Most Powerful Industry, captures like never before how fossil fuel companies must do more and more to coax oil and gas from the ground. And how that each time more effort is made, the social and environmental costs mount. The publication of Nikiforuk’s most recent book could not be more fortuitous, as the B.C. government continues to woo energy industry giants to build liquefied natural gas plants on the province’s coastline: processing facilities that would link via new pipelines to the northeast interior of the province where B.C.’s largest natural gas deposits are located. The book should be required reading for every MLA.

Given the tricky geology where some of B.C.’s natural gas is found, unprecedented volumes of water would be required to “stimulate” gas production. To date, those stimulations or fracks in the northeast of the province have caused lake levels to drop dangerously low, triggered clusters of earthquakes, and led to “failures” or leaks at sites where highly toxic wastewater from fracking operations was allegedly safely stored. All of this and more occurred when drilling and fracking activities were a tiny fraction of what they would be were just one LNG facility to be built.

No one who has paid even modest attention to the controversies associated with fracking will have escaped noticing the many ways in which governments and oil and gas companies defend modern-day extraction techniques:

We drill and frack at such great depths that there’s no possibility of contaminating drinking water.

We pour cement around our wellbores to protect groundwater from gas leaks.

Household water that can be lit on fire and water wells that are filled with methane gas has nothing to do with us. Mother Nature is responsible.

In each case, Nikiforuk debunks such assertions with a wealth of data that will leave readers shaking their heads and questioning how, if at all, fracking operations can be conducted safely. But it is the human story — that of Jessica Ernst, a one-time energy industry consultant whose well water became heavily contaminated after Encana conducted numerous fracking operations in the aquifer that supplied her and other residents in and around Rosebud, Alberta, with their water — that is the most compelling, heart-breaking and anger-inducing.

And not just because of the shoddy, dismissive attitude that the energy company had when it came to what impacts its operations might have on peace and quiet and on water quality. More troubling by far is the almost complete lack of meaningful action, incompetence and acts of overt hostility and intimidation visited on Ernst by members of the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB), Alberta’s then energy industry regulator, provincial environmental officials, and the RCMP.

From the moment that the energy company began experimenting with extracting gas from shallow, thin coal seams in and around Rosebud in the early years of the last decade, Ernst was in constant touch with the company and provincial agencies. First about the horrendous noise associated with compressors that the company had installed near her home to push gas to the surface. (Imagine a jet engine roaring constantly not far from your backyard fence.) And then, about her water. Water that came from a well that had been given a clean bill of health with no gas present before the frackers arrived, and that after the frackers left was so contaminated with methane that the water pouring from Ernst’s taps and showerhead could be lit on fire.

But if the company and regulators thought that Ernst would roll over like so many had before her, they were wrong, although precedent was clearly on their side.

Over and over again, landowners who got angry enough and rattled the cages of the fracking companies long and hard enough eventually got a cheque. The cheque covered the cost of their house and land if they were lucky, and they moved on. But there was always a catch. Landowners had to first sign papers that amounted to gag orders. They got the money in exchange for their silence. The silence even extended in some cases to the written record itself. If a landowner had filed a claim against a company in court, the court records were sometimes sealed under a “protective order.”

It was clear whose interests were thus protected. But Ernst wasn’t — and to this day still isn’t — rolling over. Instead, three years after Encana encroached on the unsuspecting citizens of Rosebud and began what amounted to a giant experiment to frack and extract methane gas from shallow coal seams, Ernst sued Encana, the EUB and Alberta Environment.

“Gag orders erased history, Ernst realized, and allowed regulators to claim there had been no proof of contamination in the first place. To her way of thinking, the courts were participating in ‘criminal activity’ by allowing the gag orders. She had compassion for families who signed to protect the health of their children but only contempt for the authorities that willfully covered up industry’s dangerous methane liabilities.”

Eleven years after Ernst’s problems first began and nearly eight years after lawyers filed her lawsuit, Ernst is still awaiting justice. The slug-like pace of the legal proceedings coupled with the drying up of all opportunities for her to work in the oil patch means that Ernst is draining her life’s savings in the fight. But she is not backing down. Blessed with an encyclopedic memory and a willingness to go to the wall to extract information from a government that holds onto it about as stubbornly as a shale rock formation holds onto its trapped gas, Ernst has armed her lawyers with a wealth of information that may one day set a precedent that tens of thousands of other landowners living in harm’s way will thank her for. She has also become a folk heroine in the process, speaking on the dangers of fracking to audiences in Ireland, England, the United States and Canada.

Fourteen years ago, Nikiforuk wrote Saboteurs. Subtitled Wiebo Ludwig’s War Against Big Oil, the book recounted the horrors visited upon numerous rural landowners by encroaching natural gas operations, and in particular the toxic legacy of “sour” gas. Sour gas contains hydrogen sulphide, a neurotoxin that can be lethal at high enough concentrations and that has killed scores of workers in the oil patch. Farmers and ranches living in proximity to gas flares or gas lines, wells and other infrastructure that may leak such gas, frequently report that their cattle spontaneously abort. And then there are the miscarriages that have happened in farmers’ and ranchers’ homes . . .

Saboteurs went on to win a Governor General’s Award for non-fiction. In its first hardcover incarnation it featured a cover that looked like a stand-in for a still from a Quentin Tarantino film: a low-angle shot, of a thickly bearded Wiebo Ludwig, clutching a rifle. A light shines on Ludwig’s face, warming it and setting it off from the ominous gray sky behind him. He stares directly and somewhat impassively down into the camera. Behind him, a sign emblazoned in red and black block letters warns of the dangers to the local community of gas wells and orders the gas industry to abandon further operations.

Ludwig was eventually found guilty of sabotaging a string of oil and gas wells and infrastructure in northern Alberta. As the dispute between him and the industry intensified prompting one of the most expensive and bizarre police investigations in Alberta history, one company and one man in particular would become Ludwig’s primary adversary. That man was Gwyn Morgan, then president of Alberta Energy Company, which later merged with PanCanadian Energy Corporation to become Encana, a company that Morgan would go on to head and that would move aggressively into mining numerous “unconventional” gas reservoirs. Including, of course, those in and around Rosebud.

Ludwig was eventually stopped. Although another raft of sabotaging activity would subsequently occur in northern B.C., showing that for some “The Weibo Way” was the only way to deal with gas-drilling operations encroaching on their lands. The Weibo Way also factors into the Ernst story but in ways that one would not expect and that will leave readers shaking their heads at the levels to which vested interests will stoop to discredit those who seek justice.

Fourteen years into her battle with Encana and the Alberta government, Ernst is still very much on her own lonely path, continuing to remain strong in the face of government and industry adversity. She shows no signs of stopping. And there isn’t a shotgun in sight.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As the mid-term elections in the United States continue to heat up, a new report released Wednesday shows that Canadian corporations have registered at least $15.3 million USD in spending on direct lobbying of the U.S. federal government in the first nine months of 2014.

That includes $2.87 million by Canadian National Railway Company in the face of increasing regulatory attention to the rail transport industry on both sides of the border, said the report — Are Canadian corporations spending to influence the U.S. political process?

Written by The Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE), the 13-page report noted that the TransCanada Corporation, well aware that the controversial Keystone pipeline project is up for approval at the federal level, spent $1.07 million on political lobbying from January to September.

The author of the report, Kevin Thomas, SHARE’s Director of Shareholder Engagement, said in a telephone interview that Canadian companies are clearly involved in political spending in the U.S.

“The problem is there’s no real requirement for disclosure on either side of the border that can quantify the extent of that spending,” Thomas said.

There needs to be transparency and proper oversight when it comes to companies trying to get involved in the political process, he added.

“Investor interest here [in Canada] is not necessarily being well served by lobbying.”

Other Canadian companies involved in U.S. lobbying include Blackberry ($2.59 million), Manulife Financial ($1.67 million), Bombardier Inc. ($1.39 million) and Barrick Gold Corporation ($1.26 million).

“As in Canada, corporations and unions are barred from contributing directly to U.S.  federal political candidates,” the report said. “However, they have multiple means of contributing funds to political activity that do not run afoul of this limit, and due to incomplete disclosure regimes, much of that spending is not transparent.”   

The report notes corporate contributions to political campaigns in the U.S. occur through direct contributions by a corporation’s Political Action Committee (PAC), contributions to so-called Super PACs, and indirect contributions to non-profit organizations and trade associations.

PACs pool money donated by members and contribute funds to political campaigns, the report said, while Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums on campaigns but cannot contribute directly to candidates or coordinate their spending activity with a candidate’s campaign.

Non-profit organizations can spend unlimited amounts on political advertising, and while their own spending must be disclosed, their source of funds can remain secret.

“This has given rise to widespread concerns about ‘dark money’ in U.S. elections,” the report said. “So far this year, dark money has already accounted for over $100 million in spending, and some observers expect it to top $200 million by the time the election is held.”

The veil was lifted on one of these non-profit organizations this fall when a technical glitch exposed a list of the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA) contributors. The organization offered perks for corporations that donate, including “intimate gatherings” with governors and other VIPs, the report details.

TransCanada Corporation ($50,000) was also listed among the contributors, the report said.  “Other known donors to the RGA are Barrick Gold, who gave $25,000 in 2012 and Encana, which gave $50,000 in 2013.”

Another non-profit organization with significant corporate support is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that drafts and promotes legislation.

“ALEC came under intense scrutiny for advocating the adoption of ‘stand your ground’ laws (legalizing the use of lethal force by civilians if they believe they face an imminent threat of serious bodily harm) across the U.S. even after the tragic Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida in 2012.”

ALEC has also advocated the expansion of “right-to-work” laws, and has been accused of climate-change denial, the report added.

“A number of U.S. companies including Google and Facebook took a reputational hit when they were found to be supporting the organization. Although its membership is still largely secret, TransCanada has recently been shown to sponsor ALEC’s activities.”

The report said the lack of effective disclosure regulations in the U.S. and in Canada means Canadian investors have no idea to what extent their companies have been contributing to U.S. political campaigns, or why.  

“What we do know is that although foreign corporations are banned from directly contributing to a candidate’s campaign, their U.S. subsidiaries are allowed to form a Political Action Committee and solicit contributions from their managers or shareholders.”

In many cases, as the report outlines, amounts disclosed at both the federal and state level by Canadian corporations are likely financially immaterial to shareholders. “The problem is that they may represent only a small part of what the company spends to influence political outcomes in the U.S.”

“Too much is still hidden from view.”

The report added there is also a real need for disclosure of corporate associations with particular political positions so that investors can decide whether the company’s political activity is consistent with their own long-term interests, and whether the company is vulnerable to reputational risks as a result of that spending.

The report notes that the Vancouver-based SHARE is engaged in a three-year project looking at how Canadian corporations’ influence on public policy debates and decision-making affects the interests of long-horizon investors.

“Institutional investors in the United States have been raising concerns about disclosure of corporate political spending for years,” the report said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

B.C.'s Christy Clark government is proposing to overhaul the Societies Act, and they've distributed a snoozer of a White Paper to let you know all about it.

If you've dozed off already, WAKE UP, because there's a massive zinger quietly planted deep inside. You can do something about it — more on that at the end of this post. But unmentioned in any preamble or executive summary, Section 99 allows any person (including corporations) to take any registered society to court that they believe is acting contrary to the public interest — whatever that is.

Here it is:

Complaints by public

99 (1) A person whom the court considers to be an appropriate person to make an application under this section may apply to the court for an order under this section on the grounds that a society

(b) is carrying on activities that are detrimental to the public interest.

In other words, environmental non-profit groups better watch their step because they're in the cross-hairs. Premier Clark is handing the legal hammer to Enbridge, Kinder Morgan, ExxonMobil, Koch, Encana, Chevron, Sinopec, Suncor and the entire B.C. LNG sector to tie non-profits up in court for years.

Section 99 looks like Clark's close advisor Gwyn Morgan drafted it up during half-time at last year's Grey Cup. Not a single competent lawyer within the Ministry of Justice could say with a straight face that it's constitutional. The clear intent is to silence and intimidate Canadian conservation and environmental non-profits with the threat of litigation. And if mere threat doesn't work, this legislation enables the corporate sector to bludgeon them into lawsuit bankruptcy.

This proposal is one of the most ill-conceived and draconian initiatives to see the light of day in a modern democracy, and reveals the extent of Clark's captivity by the oil and gas lobby. (And one more reason B.C. political leaders should be prevented from funding their election campaigns at the Petroleum Club in Calgary).

But as policy, it's also breathtakingly stupid. As if B.C. doesn't already have the mother of all court backlogs to cope with, the Clark government now proposes to fill up the system with disgruntled parents taking out their beefs in court against a minor hockey association or local elementary school parent advisory council. It will be open season on abortion clinics, LGBTQ organizations and mosques. Don't think for a minute that won't happen.

The real backdrop, of course, is that the Harper government has been on a tear against environmentalists for years, muzzling our scientists and attempting to discredit Canadian environmental NGOs.

The government has spent millions in fruitless CRA revenge audits hunting for a wholly imaginary conspiracy involving Canadian environmental organizations and U.S. scientific and charitable foundations. This vendetta has cost both the charitable sector and public purse untold funds in accounting and legal fees, over nothing.

Agree or disagree with the environmental movement, its members are entitled, as are all of us, to contribute vigorously to public debate over resource development. No one in a free and democratic society should be silenced or censored by fear of government-sanctioned reprisal. But that is precisely the purpose of this legislation.

Christy Clark would do well to remember that Canada is a free nation — our constitution says so. British Columbians, including non-profits, are free to do what we want, express ourselves freely and associate with whomever we choose to, unless it's for an unlawful purpose.

If government wants to limit that freedom it must abide by the Charter of Rights, not force citizens to meet a vague test like "public interest," which doesn't mean the same thing to any two people in the province. That would be the same Charter of Rights that Justice Susan Griffin pounded the B.C. government with during the teachers' dispute.

This White Paper is open to comments by the public until the end of day Wednesday Oct. 15. E-mail yours to the Financial and Corporate Sector Policy Branch here: fcsp@gov.bc.ca

Photo: Chris Yakimov.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canadian oil and gas companies could be liable for billions of dollars of damages per year for their contribution to climate change caused by toxic greenhouse gas emissions, according to a study published Thursday.

The study looked at five oil and gas companies currently trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange — Encana, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources, Talisman, and Husky — and found they could presently be incurring a global liability as high as $2.4 billion annually.

“Climate change is increasingly discussed not as some far-off threat but in terms of current realities,” said the 62-page study — Payback Time? What the internationalization of climate litigation could mean for Canadian oil and gas companies.

Published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL), the study found data showing the global financial cost of private and public property and other damage associated with climate change in 2010 has been estimated at $591 billion, rising to $4.2 trillion in 2030.

“That number is expected to increase dramatically in the coming years,” said the study written by Andrew Gage, WCEL staff counsel and University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers.

“In Canada, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy has estimated that climate change will cost $5 billion annually by 2020. Given these significant costs, attention will inevitably shift to the issue of compensation and liability. In short, who will pay for the costs and damages caused by climate change, as well as the necessary adaptive measures?”

Fossil fuel companies and other large-scale greenhouse gas producers have contributed, globally, to trillions of dollars of damages related to climate change, Gage said in an accompanying media release.

“As with tobacco companies in the 1980s, these producers are confident the law will not hold them responsible for these damages,” Gage added.

“But rising levels of climate damage, increasing scientific evidence about the links between emissions and the damage they cause, and an emerging public debate about who is financially responsible for this damage, could change the situation very quickly.”

The most serious risk to Canadian companies is not litigation in Canada, the media release said. “Because the impacts and causes of climate change are global, climate damages litigation could take place in, and apply the laws of, any of the countries where damage occurs.”

Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, said substantial shifts will be required of large-scale greenhouse gas producers and their investors if they hope to manage the risk of climate damages litigation.

Those shifts include “moving away from fossil fuels, and supporting the adoption of international agreements that could link the reduction of liability risk to the provision of financial assistance or future emission reductions.”

The study concluded that the potential for climate damages litigation is global in scope.

“Cases could be brought in a large number of countries, under a wide range of legal theories, then enforced in Canada or other countries in which greenhouse gas producing companies have assets,” the study said.

“As a result, these companies and their shareholders are exposed to significant legal and financial risks — and these risks will only grow.”

In a telephone interview, Gage told DeSmog Canada that he is not aware of any successful climate damages litigation anywhere in the world, even in the highly litigious U.S.

“This is very new and in very early days but it is evolving fairly rapidly,” he said. “I would think there would be lawsuits of this type outside the U.S. within a couple of years but we’ll have to see.”

In a related commentary in Thursday’s Globe and Mail, Gage and Byers said climate change is no longer a distant threat.

“Canadian oil and gas companies could soon find themselves on the hook for at least part of the damage,” they wrote. “For as climate change costs increase, a global debate has begun about who should pay.”

They also noted Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu recently called on global leaders to hold those responsible for climate damages accountable.

“Just 90 corporations – the so-called carbon majors – are responsible for 63 per cent of CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution,” Tutu was quoted as saying. “It is time to change the profit incentive by demanding legal liability for unsustainable environmental practices.”

Image Credit: Zack Embree

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Andrew Gage, Staff Counsel and head of the Climate Change program at West Coast Environmental Law, and Michael Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. This article originally appeared in the Globe and Mail.

Climate change is no longer a distant threat. Peer-reviewed science has already linked climate change to drought in Texas and Australia, extreme heat in Europe, Russia, Japan, and Korea, and storm-surge flooding during Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan.

Climate change is already causing about $600-billion in damages annually. Here in Canada, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy estimated that climate change will cost Canadians $5-billion annually by 2020.

Canadian oil and gas companies could soon find themselves on the hook for at least part of the damage. For as climate change costs increase, a global debate has begun about who should pay.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu recently called on global leaders to hold those responsible for climate damages accountable. “Just 90 corporations – the so-called carbon majors – are responsible for 63 per cent of CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution,” Tutu said. “It is time to change the profit incentive by demanding legal liability for unsustainable environmental practices.”

So far, the fossil fuel industry has successfully opposed litigation for climate damages, brought in the United States by victims of hurricanes and sea level rise. But new areas of litigation often fail at first; in the 1980s, tobacco companies were still boasting that they “have never lost a case to a consumer, have never settled, and do not expect that picture to change.” As the tobacco industry learned, changes to the interpretation and application of laws sometimes occur quite rapidly.

Nor is litigation in the U.S. or Canada the only thing the fossil fuel industry should worry about. It is becoming increasingly likely that companies could be sued by victims of climate change overseas, in countries with quite different legal systems. There, they might face lawsuits based on constitutional rights to a healthy environment, strict liability for environmental harm, or any number of other legal principles that don’t currently exist in Canadian law.

Once a foreign court has ordered a Canadian company to pay for climate damages, that order is a debt – which Canadian courts can be asked to enforce. Chevron is currently fighting court actions in Canada, the United States and Brazil that seek to enforce a $9.5-billion award handed down by the supreme court of Ecuador – for pollution caused by oil spills.

Moreover, new laws could be introduced to facilitate climate litigation. When Canadian provinces encountered impediments to their ability to sue tobacco companies for public health costs, they eliminated those impediments by passing new laws. It’s not hard to imagine countries impacted by climate change enacting new laws to clarify the liability of greenhouse gas producers.

Five companies traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange are among the “carbon majors” – Encana, Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources, Talisman, and Husky currently are collectively responsible for about $2.4-billion a year of global climate damages.

Canadians are broadly supportive of the “polluter pays” principle – the idea that those who cause pollution should pay for the harm. But because climate change has seemed far off, there has been relatively little discussion about who should pay. It has been assumed – by industry, politicians, even some environmental activists – that oil and gas companies can continue producing with impunity, at least until a global climate agreement is reached.

But rising climate costs cannot be born only by taxpayers and by those who suffer the impacts of climate change. We believe that a new global awareness of the moral and legal responsibilities of the carbon majors will lead to a wave of climate litigation. Foreign lawsuits – with damage awards that are potentially enforceable in Canada – will be difficult and expensive to defend.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Two B.C. environmental groups are taking the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission to court next week over practices they argue unlawfully permit oil and gas companies to use water.

Sierra Club B.C. and Western Canada Wilderness Committee — in documents filed with the Supreme Court of B.C. — argue the Oil and Gas Commission has been engaged in a “systemic” practice of issuing back-to-back “short-term” water approvals and call for permits issued to Encana to be quashed.

The case will be heard in the Supreme Court of B.C. in Vancouver on March 17 and 18.

“Under the Water Act, if you want long-term access to water, you need a water licence,” says Caitlyn Vernon, campaigns director with Sierra Club B.C. “What the Oil and Gas Commission is doing is granting consecutive short-term approvals to oil and gas companies.”

The case centres around water approvals under Section 8 of B.C.’s Water Act, which governs short-term use and diversion of water for up to 24 months.

By requesting and analyzing Section 8 water approvals going back seven years, Sierra Club B.C. and the Wilderness Committee — represented by lawyers from Ecojustice — determined the approvals were being given to the same companies for consecutive terms.

“Multiple approvals are routinely granted over multiple years to the same company, for the same purposes, at the same locations and thereby violate s. 8 of the Water Act,” reads the groups’ petition to the court.

The groups argue this is illegal — that if a company requires water for more than one term or more than 24 months, they should have to obtain a water licence, not a short-term approval.

This is an important distinction, says Karen Campbell, the Ecojustice lawyer arguing the case. When a company applies for a water licence, its application has to be posted publicly and there’s opportunity for a public hearing. With a Section 8 approval, the public is not notified and there’s no chance for public input, she says.

83% of “short-term” approvals granted for more than one term

Sierra Club paid more than $1,000 to obtain copies of 1,352 Section 8 approvals — 83 per cent of which grant the right to use or divert water for more than one term to the same company, for the same purposes, from the same location.

Encana, along with other companies working in B.C.’s northeast gas fields, requires vast amounts of water to conduct hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — a process that involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals underground at pressure to fracture the rock and release the natural gas trapped inside. Afterward, some of the water is re-used, but much of it is contaminated and stored in tailings ponds or injected into deep wells underground, where it is removed from the hydrological cycle.

The Encana water approvals that could be revoked are in the Montney shale basin in the South Peace, near Dawson Creek.

“People in the north are already seeing their water depleted and contaminated by fracking and drilling,” Vernon says. “The case is about fixing the way water permits are handed out, so any long-term water withdrawals go through a review process with oversight.”

One lake, five “short-term” approvals

In an affidavit filed with the court, Eoin Madden of Western Canada Wilderness Committee notes Encana has five approvals at Wasp Lake, which allow Encana to use water for the same purpose for five years. Encana also has a water licence for the same lake.

The short-term approvals allow eight times more water to be drawn annually than the water licence does — up to 69,000 cubic metres per year, or enough water to fill 27 Olympic-sized swimming pools. The approvals also allow water to be drawn year-round, while the licence prohibits withdrawals between May and October.

If Encana withdrew the daily limit set out in the approval, it would take less than three days to withdraw the annual limit of their Wasp Lake water licence, says Morgan Blakley, a staff lawyer with Ecojustice.

“They’re violating the spirit of the legislation,” Blakley says.

The LNG connection

Image credit: Shell via Flickr

With all the talk of building liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities on B.C.’s coast, Vernon says it’s important for people to make the connection between fracking and LNG.

“Building any LNG terminals will require an increase in fracking, with associated impacts on water,” she says. “In a climate-changing world, freshwater is an increasingly scarce resource and we need to be managing it responsibly for communities, for agriculture, for our children’s future.”

In a recent blog in the Vancouver Sun, Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and David Hughes, a geoscientist, wrote that if even 70 per cent of the current LNG proposals go ahead, about 39,000 new wells would be required by 2040. If nine of ten of those wells were fracked, at least 582 billion litres of water would be polluted and removed from the hydrological cycle.

Encana, Oil and Gas Commission Respond

In an affidavit filed with the court, Cameron Buss of Encana Corporation says the company tends to rely on Section 8 water approvals during the exploratory phase.

“Encana’s use of water under Section 8 approvals is for discrete operations, which are short term in nature, but continue throughout the life of a play,” his statement reads.

Encana argues that if the Oil and Gas Commission’s practice of granting back-to-back short-term water approvals is declared unlawful, there will be significant harm to Encana and others.

“There are not readily available alternative water sources for Encana's ongoing operations in the Montney area,” Buss states.  “Many of these operations would cease if the order sought … is granted.”

The Oil and Gas Commission’s response to the petition says: “The Water Act contains no express prohibition on repeats of approvals under Section 8” and argues it interpreted the Water Act “reasonably.”

Main image: Jeremy Buckingham via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Three environmental organizations are taking aim at what they call the “systemic” contravening of British Columbia water usage laws in favour of the province's natural gas industry.

A lawsuit (PDF) recently filed in the Supreme Court of BC alleges that the BC Oil and Gas Commission has been violating the provincial Water Act in its granting of licenses to natural gas companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in the province. The suit is being brought by environmental law charity Ecojustice on behalf of the Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club BC.

“Given that water is an increasingly scarce and precious resource, and that in a climate changing world we need to be managing it carefully, the first step is for the government to do what they are legally required to do by their own laws,” Caitlyn Vernon of Sierra Club BC told Desmog in an interview.

Currently, companies can be granted 24 month permits for water use as a short term arrangement (that's up from the 12 month limit that was in place until last spring). These permits come with little review and are meant for short-term, low-impact projects. For longer term undertakings that will last several years – such as oil and gas extraction – companies are supposed to apply for a water usage license, which involves a more rigorous review and monitoring process. The lawsuit alleges that the commission has been consistently renewing short-term permits, and thereby contravening the law.

Data received by Ecojustice from the BC Oil and Gas commission which forms the basis of the lawsuit, shows that some permits have been renewed up to six times, and that some permits are granted for more than 24 months at a time. The commission's actions, they say, clearly shows a systemic avoidance of the law.

Also named in the lawsuit is gas company Encana Corp. While there are no allegations that Encana has violated permitting laws itself, the suit hopes to quash two water permits that the company was granted, on the basis that the permits last more than one term and that some exceed the 24 month limit laid out in the Water Act. While Encana is only one of many companies operating fracking sites in the province, it is one of the largest, and their situation provides clear evidence of the contravention of the Water Act, explained Karen Campbell of Ecojustice in a phone interview with Desmog.

Long-term water usage licenses require oversight necessary to preserve the province's freshwater, and especially drinking water, according to Campbell. Already there are concerns that communities in northern BC are experiencing water shortages. For example, the three organizations point to Encana drawing on massive amounts of water from the Kisktinaw River, from with the town of Dawson Creek draws their water.

Over the past three years, the company has used the equivalent of 880 Olympic-sized swimming pools – the same amount the town uses in one year.

“The more water industrial users take, the less water there is to sustain ecosystems or for people to drink,” said Campbell in a Q & A released by Ecojustice. “What’s especially concerning is that no one seems to know exactly how much water industry operations are consuming.” Those concerns were echoed by Vernon, who explained that no government official has been able to provide them with exactly how much water is being used by the natural gas industry in the province.

Video from Common Sense Canadian.

What is known is that fracking uses huge amounts of water: by some estimates 11 million litres per well. With over 7,300 wells already in operation in the province, and the BC Liberal government pushing plans to significantly grow the industry, critics say it's clear that there needs to be more oversight before a water crisis strikes.

“If we're looking at the management of water in BC, in light of all the fracking that's currently happening, we want to make clear that any focus on liquid natural gas is going to require massive increases in fracking operations, with its associated impacts to water availability, water contamination and green house gas emissions,” said Vernon. Those concerns were echoed in an article published as part of a recent series on water issues in BC, also produced by Ecojustice and published by The Tyee, which showed that water shortages in the province are more probable than many would expect.

The concern about water use is just one piece of the puzzle, though. The fracking industry in BC is one of the largest in Canada. As Campbell points out, while there are moratoriums on fracking in Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, and protests and blockades against fracking in New Brunswick, the process has been happening without contention in BC for a decade now. Beyond water usage, there are concerns about water contamination from the chemicals used, the impact that the fracturing of shale may have on local geology (studies have blamed fracking for small earth quakes in the US), and lack of consultation with First Nations on use of their unceded territory.

Public concern and opposition seems to be growing though. Earlier this month, protesters with Rising Tide Vancouver Coast Salish Territories took to BC Premier Christy Clark's front lawn to set-up a “rig” to “frack” her land. And thousands turned out to a demonstration in Vancouver against pipelines on November 16. While primarily targeting oil pipelines like Enbridge's Northern Gateway, there was also visible opposition to fracking.

“I think this lawsuit is a really important piece of increasing public concern about this industry and their practices. And I think that in some point in time we will be looking at trade-offs, and what are we prepared to trade off? Are we prepared to trade off our water for gas?” asks Campbell. “Or is our water going to be a more valuable and previous asset to us at some point down the road than gas? Certainly I think that the answer is water, myself.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Gerry Protti, Alberta's new overseer of environment and safety in the province's oilpatch, has been central to a network of oil industry front groups and lobbyists for many years and it is raising the eyebrows of more than a few people.

Protti was recently named as the new head of the Alberta Energy Regulator, a new provincial agency whose mandate, is "…to provide for the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources in Alberta."

Citizens groups are rightly upset with the appointment, given that Protti is a former oil lobbyist in various capacities, previously working as the vice president of corporate affairs for Encana, and most significantly as the founding member of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the main lobbying arm of Canada's oil companies. 

Protti's most recent job, prior to his appointment to the Alberta Energy Regulator, was the president of an organization called the Energy Policy Institute of Canada. The Energy Policy Institute of Canada describes itself as, "… a non-profit organization formed by business organizations that are concerned about Canada’s energy future." The Institute lists the largest oil sands players in the country as its major supporters, including companies like Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Encana, Suncor and Shell. 

According to government registry documents, the Energy Policy Institute of Canada shares a Calgary office space with National Public Relations, a consulting agency with lobbyists in Ottawa representing the interests of Protti's old group the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, as well as Protti's other former employer, Encana.

All a little too cozy for my liking – and the Alberta government might think so too, considering Protti's official bio [PDF] on Alberta Energy's site does not even mention Protti's stint running the Energy Policy Institute of Canada. So it looks like this tight network of pro-oil lobbyists has grabbed the golden goose with Protti now running the agency overseeing environment and safety regulations in Alberta's oilpatch.

Is it a golden goose or a Trojan horse? Regardless of the metaphor, Protti's appointment is worrisome, given the feverish rate the government of Alberta and Stephen Harper's federal government are developing Alberta's tar sands. Protti is not very likely to stand in their way. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.