GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT - Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches - Working Paper No.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Working Paper No. 1 GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
Table of Contents
Global Shale Gas and the Anti-Fracking Movement
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
Overview.........................................................................................................................................1
Water Contamination
Worker Health and Safety Concerns
The Anti-Fracking Movement
The Global Growth of Shale Gas Hydraulic Fracturing.............................................................4
The Impact of Shale Gas on Renewable Energy in the U.S.
Multinationals Move In on Gas
Will New Free Trade Agreements Fast Track Fracking?
The Anti-Fracking Movement......................................................................................................6
Water Contamination and Access
Mystery Chemicals and Health-Related Concerns
Displacement of Indigenous People and Destruction of Culture
Fugitive Methane and Climate Concerns
Anti-Fracking Activism at the Local Level
Regulate or Ban? Movement Divisions
The U.S. Experience with Regulation and Regulatory Processes
The Case of Illinois
U.S. Federal Regulation – and Industry Self-Regulation
From Local Struggles to National Moratoriums
A Global Movement Emerging?
Trade Unions and Fracking........................................................................................................15
The United States and Canada
Does Fracking Create Jobs?
Global Trade Union Bodies
National Trade Union Centers
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................19
Appendix: Model Resolution – for Discussion.........................................................................20
References....................................................................................................................................21
This paper was prepared by Sean Sweeney and Lara Skinner.
Published by Trade Unions for Energy Democracy (TUED), in cooperation with the Rosa Luxemburg
Stiftung—New York Office and the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, June 2014
With support from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)
Cover image: Nicolas Raymond, www.freestock.ca
Trade Unions for Energy Democracy (TUED) is a global, multi-sector initiative to advance democratic
direction and control of energy in a way that promotes solutions to the climate crisis, energy poverty, the
degradation of both land and people, and responds to the attacks on workers’ rights and protections.
www.energydemocracyinitiative.org
Global Shale Gas and the Anti-Fracking
Movement
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
v his paper has been prepared to assist unions
T concludes by attempting to bring together the
and their close allies who wish to better un- available information on unions’ perspectives
derstand the impacts of shale gas drilling, or and positions on this increasingly important is-
“fracking,” and want to develop a position or ap- sue. It also raises for discussion the prospect of
proach to fracking that protects workers, com- unions giving support to a global moratorium
munities, and the environment. It begins with on fracking based either on the precautionary
a summary of the shale gas industry’s global principle (the health and environmental effects
expansion, and then looks at the opposition to are not fully understood or have still to be ade-
fracking that has emerged in a number of key quately addressed) or on the more definitive as-
countries. A preliminary profile of the anti-frack- sessment that fracking can never be sufficiently
ing movement highlights the goals and charac- safe in terms of its impact on health and the
teristics of this movement as well as the issues environment and should therefore be stopped
that lie at the heart of the resistance. The paper altogether.
Overview
Hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, or gy and ecology in the United States. From its
“fracking,” as it is commonly called, pumps large birthplace in the Barnett Shale in East Texas
volumes of water, sand, and chemicals into a in 2002, fracking has spread to 17 states, with
gas well to fracture or crack the shale and oth- more than 80,000 wells drilled or permitted
er tight rock formations, releasing gas into the since 2005. Moreover, the oil and gas industry
wells. The process typically involves drilling ap- is aggressively seeking to expand fracking to
proximately three kilometers below the earth’s new states—including New York, California, and
surface, and then one to three kilometers hori- North Carolina.2
zontally. Hydraulic drilling has been used since
the 1940s but its use has increased significantly In the last few years fracking has also gone
during the last ten years due to the addition of global. The discovery of large volumes of new
directional and horizontal drilling techniques, and potentially exploitable shale gas deposits
which allows the oil and gas industry to access has led to exploration and drilling in a grow-
previously out-of-reach shale reserves.1 ing number of countries.3 The U.S. remains the
clear leader in shale gas development and use
The production of shale gas by way of hydrau- but shale gas production is already underway in
lic fracturing and horizontal drilling (fracking) Canada (where it has been happening for some
has already had a major impact on both ener- time) and exploration and/or drilling is either
1
GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
Graphic: Laura Mihelich/MEDILL Reports, Northwestern University
proposed or happening in Argentina, Austra- larly severe impacts in terms of water contam-
lia, Austria, China, France, Germany, Hungary, ination and access. Fracking just one well can
India, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, use between 2 million to 5.6 million gallons of
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the freshwater (7.6 million liters to 21 million liters)
United Kingdom.4 The practice has also been and produce between 420,000 to 2.5 million
promoted globally by the U.S. Department of gallons of wastewater (1.6 million liters to 9.4
State’s 2010 Shale Gas Initiative, which urges million liters), known as “produced” water or
the adoption of legislation favorable to fracking. “flowback,” which is water mixed with frack flu-
The Initiative claims that shale gas is a “lower id.6 The remaining high volume mix of non-bio-
carbon fuel option” and thus can help in the degradable waste remains underground and
fight against climate change.5 under pressure. Freshwater aquifers, water-
ways and drinking wells can, and have been,
contaminated when hydraulic fracturing inad-
Water Contamination vertently pierces and then leaks gas and drilling
chemicals into fresh water drinking supplies. In
The evidence strongly suggests that fracking fact, the force from hydraulic fracturing—both
poses serious dangers to workers, communi- the drilling itself and the reinjection of “flow-
ties, and the natural environment with particu- back” or “produced water” into old wells—is so
2
GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
great that it has caused earthquakes in several gests that shale gas (in full life-cycle terms) is
regions.7 The wastewater produced by fracking more greenhouse gas (GHG)-intensive than coal
has also been a source of water contamina- due to methane leakage from drilling sites.14
tion—water treatment plants have yet to find Moreover, the growing presence of shale gas
a way to safely remove the chemicals used in in the global energy system is undermining re-
fracking.8 This means that fracking chemicals newable energy (particularly in the U.S.), thus
are circulated back into natural waterways or exacerbating fracking’s likely climate effects.
drinking water supplies with seriously negative
implications for public health and the environ-
ment.9 In some cases, wastewater treatment The Anti-Fracking Movement
plants have refused to accept fracking waste-
water because they cannot properly treat it and These and other concerns have sparked an op-
this has incited illegal dumping of wastewater position movement to fracking that is diverse,
on roads or in fields.10 vibrant, and global. The movement’s goals
range from the desire to regulate fracking in or-
der to make it safe (or safer) to the wish to ban
Worker Health and Safety Concerns fracking completely. The strategies and tactics
of the organizations engaged in the movement
In addition to water and chemicals, silica sand is vary somewhat but anti-fracking organizations
injected in fracking wells to act as a “proppant,” have, until recently, been mainly local groups
keeping underground fractures open to allow trying to influence local political processes.15
natural gas to flow to the surface of the well. However, the movement’s effectiveness in se-
Exposure to silica causes silicosis, lung cancer, curing moratoria on fracking in several coun-
and other debilitating diseases and thus makes tries (as well as a large number of regions, cit-
fracking a major health and safety concern for ies, and towns) is solidifying the movement on
workers in the fracking industry and for near- a global level, so much so that the gas industry
by communities.11 Large quantities of silica has itself begun to monitor the movement’s
sand are used in fracking –each fracking well growth. One industry-sponsored study refers
uses about four million pounds, or 1,800 metric to “hostile lobby groups” that “exert dispro-
tons, of silica sand.12 The National Institute for portionate influence over government policy,
Occupational Safety and Health has monitored [create] political instability delay[ing] essential
workers’ exposure to silica at eleven different reforms, contracts are subject to uncertainty or
fracking sites in five U.S. states. Of the 116 sam- occasional change, elements of the infrastruc-
ples they collected 47% showed silica exposure ture are deficient, or the activities of unions or
levels greater than is acceptable under U.S. Oc- protest groups impede operations.”16
cupational Health and Safety Administration’s
(OSHA) rules; 79% showed silica exposure lev- Unions around the world are beginning to pay
els higher than is permissible under the more attention to fracking’s effects on workers, com-
robust National Institute for Occupational Safe- munities and the environment. However, even
ty and Health recommendations; and 9% of in the U.S. where fracking is most developed,
the samples showed silica exposure levels ten as of late 2013 many unions had yet to take a
times higher than is permissible under OSHA position. However, there are exceptions. Some
rules.13 unions are actively supporting fracking, and oth-
ers are doing the opposite. For examples, the
The emissions and climate impacts of fracking Building and Construction Trades division of the
are equally serious. Scientific data strongly sug- AFL-CIO is openly engaged in a pro-fracking alli-
3
GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
ance with the oil and gas industries (see below) profit.” Effectively, the motion calls for a mora-
in both the U.S. and Canada, despite numerous torium on the fracking method of gas extraction
studies showing that the oil and gas industry “unless proven harmless for people and the en-
consistently and dramatically overestimates the vironment.”19
number of jobs and economic benefits that will
be produced by fracking.17 On the other hand, Given the push on the part of the gas industry to
two of Canada’s largest unions, CUPE and UNI- drill for shale gas in many parts of the world, it
FOR, have called for a national moratorium on will be increasingly important for unions to fully
fracking.18 In the UK, the TUC 2012 annual con- understand its impact on workers, unions, com-
ference passed a resolution that stated, “The munities, and the environment and to develop
principle of precaution should be applied when positions and an approach to fracking that will
developing new energies and the health of peo- protect workers and strengthen the trade union
ple and the environment should be put before movement over the long-term.
The Global Growth of Shale Gas Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) for shale gas is shale gas resources.23 More than 41 countries
rapidly becoming a global phenomenon. The are thought to have significant-to-large supplies
known amount of technically recoverable oil and a total of 137 shale formations have been
and gas from shale formations has increased by cited for exploration and development but two-
a factor of ten in the past two years and several thirds of the assessed, technically recoverable,
countries seem determined to follow the lead shale gas is concentrated in just six countries:
of the U.S.20 Algeria, Argentina, Canada, China, Mexico, and
the U.S.24
In a major 2011 study, the International Energy
Agency (IEA) asked Are We Entering a Golden Age The global expansion of shale gas development
of Gas?21 The IEA offered a scenario where nat- is being driven in part by significant advances
ural gas use will increase 50 percent by 2035, in horizontal and directional drilling, well stim-
with 35 percent of this growth coming from ulation technologies, and advances in the cost
unconventional sources like tight gas, coal bed effectiveness of these technologies. “Hydraulic
methane, and shale gas. The term “unconven- fracturing” is the most significant of these new
tional” refers to the techniques used to extract technologies, and it is this knowledge that has
difficult to reach reserves as well as the source triggered the exploration of shale gas resources
of those reserves.22 around the world.25 What was once impossible
is now being pursued on a global scale.
A June 2013 study sponsored by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) and compiled
by Advanced Resources International (ARI) pro- The Impact of Shale Gas on Renew-
vided further data to support the “golden age” able Energy in the U.S.
hypothesis. The World Shale Gas and Shale Oil
Resource Assessment calculated an estimated Most people assume that the rise in the devel-
7.3 trillion cubic feet of “technically recoverable” opment of shale gas simply displaces fossil fu-
4
GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
els. The reality is that drilling for shale gas has players. Exxon-Mobil bought out XTO in 2009
had a negative impact on renewable energy in for a total of $41 billion. In 2010, seven further
the U.S.26 Citing low gas prices as a major fac- shale gas transactions, each ranging from $1
tor, Siemens announced it was laying off 615 to $5 billion, were completed in North Amer-
wind energy job in Florida, Iowa, and Kansas ica, according to the IEA. Shell purchased a
in September 2012.27 A study of the state of $4.7 billion stake in Virginia-based East Re-
Ohio found that the development of shale gas sources and Chevron purchased a $4.3 bil-
has dealt a huge blow to the state’s wind in- lion stake in Pittsburgh-based Atlas Energy. In
dustry, despite Ohio being a national leader in May 2011, Chevron announced it was buying
its development.28 In 2010, the state possessed 228,000 acres of leases for drilling from Chief
106 wind power supply chain businesses and Oil & Gas LLC and Tug Hill Inc. in Southwest-
63 solar power supply chain businesses, em- ern Pennsylvania. Hess reportedly leases over
ploying 9,000 workers. Since then, many of 80,000 acres with the Northern Wayne Property
these companies have declared bankrupt- Owners Alliance, a Pennsylvania landowners’
cy, and thousands of workers have lost their group.32
jobs.29 Proponents of natural gas as a “bridge
fuel” to renewable energy argue that increased By 2012, four companies—Halliburton Co.,
availability of natural gas would displace dirt- Schlumberger Ltd., Baker Hughes Inc.’s BJ Ser-
ier fuels like coal. The use of coal has indeed vices unit, and Frac Tech Services LLC—provid-
declined in the U.S. as power stations switch ed more than half of North American fracking
to gas, but cheap gas, coupled with the threat- services. Halliburton topped the group with
ened expiration of a government tax credit, led 18% of the market, followed by Schlumberger
to 10,000 layoffs in the wind sector between at 13%, BJ Services with 12% and Frac Tech with
2009-2012.30 11%.33
Some analysts believe that the negative impact The global shale gas expansion is today being
of gas on the growth of renewable energy will driven politically and economically by multina-
only be temporary and over the longer term tionals and partnerships between the larger
renewable energy will displace both coal and companies. For example, Chinese companies
gas for power generation.31 But given the need (such as the Chinese National Offshore Oil
for rapid development of renewable energy in Corporation—CNOOC, and PetroChina) have
order to meet the kind of emissions reductions entered into partnerships with Shell and Sta-
levels proposed by the scientific community, toil, while BP is working with the Chinese giant
any delay or setback to renewable energy is Sinopec. In the U.S., Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Chev-
likely to have serious repercussions. ron, and BP have gravitated toward shale gas,
with BP purchasing a 25 percent stake in Ches-
apeake Energy, once one of the largest drillers
Multinationals Move In on Gas in the Marcellus Shale. China’s own shale gas
reserves are apparently considerable and Sin-
To understand the role that multinational cor- opec and CNOOC have formed partnerships
porations are now playing in the shale gas with U.S. based multinationals as well as BP to
industry, it is important to look at what has drill there.34 According to the Transnational In-
happened in the U.S. Small, independent, non- stitute, the drillers include “global corporations
union companies were once situated on the such as Apache, Chesapeake, Chevron, Dart,
cutting-edge of the shale gas boom, but these Encana, Exxon Mobil, Schuepbach, Talisman,
have since been displaced by more powerful Shell, etc.”35
5
GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
Will New Free Trade Agreements Fast es still give companies the right to be compen-
Track Fracking? sated at fair market value.39 This eliminates the
risk related to companies investing in projects
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the that threaten community and public wellbeing
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partner- as taxpayers will be held responsible for com-
ship (TTIP), two new trade agreements current- pensating the firm. Taxpayers are also saddled
ly under negotiation, are expected to expand with the legal fees governments amass defend-
investor protection clauses that could cause an ing regulations and laws from corporations.
increase in gas drilling and fracking.
Hundreds of sub-national and national bans
The TPP is a proposed free trade agreement against fracking have been passed through-
between twelve countries: the U.S., Canada, out the world in the last few years (see below).
Mexico, Chile, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, Ma- Regional or national fracking bans have been
laysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, and Brunei.36 passed in the U.S., Bulgaria, France, the U.K.,
The TTIP includes the U.S. and 27 nations of the South Africa, Germany, Romania, the Czech Re-
European Union. public, Argentina, Ireland, Australia, and Cana-
da.40 These moratoria against fracking would be
Both agreements are expected to expand a le- threatened by the TPP and TTIP.
gal framework activate under the North Amer-
ican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), called “in- The TPP also threatens to significantly expand
vestor-state equivalency.” This clause allows the market for shale liquid natural gas exports
foreign companies to challenge and potentially from the U.S., driving more fracking and nat-
overturn vital local, state, and national labor, ural gas drilling in the U.S.41 Japan, one of the
public health, domestic content, and environ- countries participating in the TPP, is the larg-
mental safeguards that are seen as “trade barri- est importer of liquid natural gas (LNG) in the
ers” and lower profit expectations.37 world. It accounts for 33% of the world’s LNG
import market, importing 78.8 million tons
In 2012, a U.S. owned oil and gas company, Lone in 2011.42 A 2012 study of LNG exports by the
Pine Resources, sued Quebec for $250 million U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil
over its fracking moratorium.38 The company Energy stated that the U.S. public would not
claims that Quebec’s fracking ban prevents the benefit from increasing LNG exports. Instead,
company from profiting from oil and gas mining the study said that it would only benefit those
in the St. Lawrence Valley. who rely on investment dividends, as opposed
to wages and could negatively impact U.S. con-
Even if a law or regulation demonstrates a clear sumers by causing the price of natural gas to
public purpose, these investor protection claus- increase.43
The Anti-Fracking Movement
The global growth in fracking has been met some instances the opposition has involved
with a high level of resistance. Wherever frack- direct actions and civil disobedience; in others,
ing is happening or has been proposed, it has anti-fracking activists have used conventional
almost invariably generated opposition. In public oversight procedures to appeal to local
6
GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
and regional decision makers and, in a grow- water is available. This has provoked opposition
ing number of instances, national parliaments. from farmers and, significantly, farm workers.46
Today the anti-fracking movement is showing South African anti-fracking groups also note
signs of cohering into an international move- that the benefits of fracking will go to the rich
ment—one in which unions can still play an im- and not to the rural poor and urban working
portant role. class. In China, efforts are underway to exploit
almost 230 billion cubic feet of shale gas, re-
There are several core issues driving anti-frack- quiring an estimated 485 billion cubic feet of
ing activism, each of which are reviewed below. water. Little is known about anti-fracking activi-
Initially, concerns focused mainly on water con- ty in China but much is known concerning water
sumption and contamination. More recently, a scarcity—China’s per capita water availability is
number of research studies have revealed that barely 25 percent of the global average.47
the emissions impact of fracking is probably
much larger than was previously believed, and
this is also contributing to growing levels of ac- Mystery Chemicals and Health-Relat-
tivism. ed Concerns
In the U.S., the gas industry has been criticized
Water Contamination and Access for failing to disclose the chemicals used in hy-
draulic fracking. This non-disclosure is also a
As noted above, the impact of fracking on water major driver of resistance in the U.S., and this
is a major issue for the anti-fracking movement. seems to be the case in a number of other
“Produced water” often returns to the surface countries.
containing measurable concentrations of ra-
dioactive materials and huge concentrations The chemicals used in fracking have been linked
of salt. This puts stress on water treatment fa- to poor health in people and to the death of
cilities that were not designed to process this farm animals. The actual composition of the flu-
kind of wastewater. Hence, produced water is id used in fracking is kept secret by the industry.
often left in large ponds where the water even- However, a study undertaken by the US House
tually evaporates or seeps into the surround- of Representatives in 2011 noted that, of 2,500
ing land. Sometimes the water is dumped into fracking inputs, 650 are chemicals and several
mainstream waterways.44 A recent report calcu- of these are carcinogens and hazardous air pol-
lated that 280 billion gallons of toxic wastewa- lutants. The quantities used are vast. The study
ter were produced by U.S. wells in 2012, while reported that fourteen oil and gas companies
145,000 hectares of U.S. land have been directly injected 780 million gallons of fracking chemi-
damaged as the result of drilling since 2005.45 cals and other substances into wells, including
10.2 million gallons of fluids containing known
Concerns about water scarcity have also so- or suspected carcinogens and 11.7 million gal-
lidified the anti-fracking movements in sever- lons containing chemicals regulated under the
al countries, such as France (Rhône-Alps) and Safe Drinking Water Act. 48
South Africa (the Karoo region), as well as in the
U.S., especially in the Western states that have According to a study conducted by New York
been enduring serious drought conditions in re- State’s Department of Environmental Conser-
cent years. In South Africa, 24 exploratory frack- vation, each well will inject 49,000-159,000 gal-
ing wells are expected to use over 200,000 cubic lons of unknown chemicals into the ground.
meters of water in a region where barely any The impact of the chemicals used in shale gas
7
GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
drilling, both in the short and long term, re- rious enough that the Argentinean government
mains unknown. The sheer scale of the shale has resorted to bringing in water by truck to
gas boom has heightened concerns with regard Mapuche communities. It is important that the
to the impact of such a massive use of “mystery struggle of the Mapuche be seen in the context
chemicals.” In New York State, the gas industry of decades of indigenous people’s resistance to
hopes to receive permits for the construction mining and drilling and to the displacements
of 42,126 wells in the next 30 years.49 As one of communities and destruction of indigenous
study notes, “without rigorous scientific studies, culture.
the gas drilling boom sweeping the world will
remain an uncontrolled health exeriment on an The Mapuche have initiated a series of militant
enormous scale.”50 actions. For example, they seized a gas process-
ing plant near Zapala in late 2011 as a means
of expressing anger at the contamination of
Displacement of Indigenous People sacred water supplies.53 In late August 2013,
and Destruction of Culture 5,000 protesters in Neuquén clashed with po-
lice as the Neuquén parliament was poised to
In the Americas, indigenous people have been legalize drilling. According to Observatorio Petr-
an important force in the struggle against frack- olero Sur (OPSUR), “In seven hours of protests,
ing, especially in Argentina and Canada, largely more than 25 people were injured with rubber
due to concerns about displacement and de- bullets and tear gas; one of them, a 33-year old
struction of their culture. teacher accompanied by his son, was hit by a
lead gunshot in the chest. Several people were
In Argentina, where large deposits of shale gas detained. In spite of the situation in the streets,
have been discovered, the state-owned energy that day the parliament approved the agree-
company YPF has entered into an agreement ment.”54 Houses of a Mapuche community were
with Chevron to drill in several regions of the burnt as retaliation for the protest. The follow-
country. Today Shell, Exxon, Petrobras, Apache, ing day, August 23, 2011, 10,000 mobilized to
Dow, and Total, among others, are exploring protest both the repression of the previous day
Neuquén’s shale formations. Moreover, YPF in- and the YPF-Chevron agreement. Despite the
tends to explore in Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, crackdown, anti-fracking resistance has led to
and Chile.51 fifteen local authorities banning fracking across
five provinces in Argentina.
The indigenous Mapuche people of Neuquén
in Patagonia consider fracking to be a threat to Indigenous people have also been at the center
their communities and their culture and have of the three-year old anti-fracking movement
thus been at the forefront of the anti-fracking in New Brunswick, Canada, where direct action
fight. Again water—which carries with it deep methods have frequently been used and an en-
religious significance for the Mapuche and campment established.55 Both water scarcity
other indigenous people in the Americas—is a and the religious significance of water among
central focus of the struggle. An environmen- First Nations are again central concerns.
tal impact study conducted in the region by a
German consultancy firm found that 630,000 In June 2013 a three-day battle ensued between
cubic meters of soil had been contaminated members of Elsipogtog First Nations people
with chromium, lead, arsenic, naphtaline, and and police in New Brunswick, Canada. The for-
pyrene, as well as other heavy metals in the wa- mer surrounded a parked gas industry vehicle
ter.52 The levels of contamination have been se- and refused company efforts to reclaim it. A
8GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
demonstration of 100 Elsipogtog outside the ministration, support this conclusion. Howarth’s
offices of Southwestern Energy, the company study reported that 75% of wells sampled with-
leading the shale gas exploration effort, led to in one kilometer of gas drilling in the Marcellus
a number of arrests. In December 2013, mem- shale in Pennsylvania were contaminated with
bers of the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet First Nations methane.59 More recently, a comprehensive at-
staged protests against shale gas exploration in mospheric study released in November 2013
New Brunswick.56 by Scot M. Miller of Harvard University’s De-
partment of Earth and Planetary Sciences and
his team claimed that, based on methane mea-
Fugitive Methane and Climate Con- surements in the South-Central United States,
cerns the oil and gas industries may be emitting near-
ly five times the methane that had previously
At the point of combustion, natural gas gen- been estimated by the Emission Database for
erates up to 50 percent fewer emissions than Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR).60 These
coal per unit of energy produced. Given this, the studies have to some extent dispelled the bet-
majority of mainstream environmental groups ter-than-coal “bridge fuel” status of shale gas
in the U.S. have regarded natural gas (including and mainstream environmental organizations
shale gas) as a ‘bridge fuel’ from coal to renew- seem to be adjusting their positions accor-
able energy. However, in the last few years data dingly.
from a number of studies has drawn attention
to the methane escaping from drilling sites How important is fugitive methane from a cli-
(known as “fugitive methane”) and there is now mate change perspective? According to How-
considerable evidence to suggest that, from a arth and Shindell, fugitive methane from shale
climate perspective, burning shale gas is no bet- gas drilling will produce between 21% and 52%
ter than burning coal and may in fact be worse. more emissions over a 20-year time frame than
As a result of this new data, the anti-fracking coal for the same amount of energy generat-
movement is beginning to gain more support ed. These scientists have predicted that unless
among mainstream environmental organiza- emissions of methane (and black carbon) are
tions in the Global North. reduced immediately, the Earth will warm to 1.5
degrees Celsius by 2030 and to 2.0 degrees Cel-
Per molecule, the global warming potential of sius by 2045 to 2050 whether or not carbon di-
methane is far higher than that of CO2, 34 times oxide emissions are reduced. However, reducing
stronger as a heat-trapping gas than CO2 over a methane (and black carbon) emissions, even if
100-year time scale, and 86 times more power- carbon dioxide is not controlled, would signifi-
ful over a 20-year time frame according to the cantly slow the rate of global warming and post-
Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change pone reaching the 1.5 degree Celsius and 2.0
(IPCC).57 Methane leakage levels of just 1.5%-3% degrees Celsius thresholds by 12 to 15 years.
of gas harvested would erase all of the GHG-re-
lated benefits of using gas instead of coal.58 Currently, many anti-fracking activists are ei-
ther unaware of the fugitive methane issue or
A number of studies by leading scientists sug- regard it as having limited potential to organize
gest that methane leakage rates from shale gas resistance at the local level. However, this could
drilling have been seriously underestimated. change as more is known about methane’s
The work of Robert W. Howarth at Cornell Uni- global warming potential and large green orga-
versity and Drew Shindell and Gabrielle Pétron nizations and NGOs turn away from the “bridge
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- fuel” perspective.
9GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
Anti-Fracking Activism at the Local is moving to take advantage of shale gas in the
Level Ukraine, where anti-fracking groups are also
being formed. 64
Hundreds of anti-fracking groups have emerged
in more than a dozen countries in recent years. In Argentina, where indigenous groups have
Very few of these groups grew out of the estab- taken the lead, the anti-fracking movement has
lished environmental organizations. France’s also gained momentum around issues of ener-
anti-fracking Collectif movement, for example, gy sovereignty and calls to resist the takeover
grew from inside the regions identified for shale of Argentina’s energy resources by foreign mul-
gas development and encompassed more than tinationals. Chevron has invested $1.5 billion
260 groups nationwide by May 2012.61 New in the nationalized company YPF for shale gas
York State’s formidable anti-fracking network development.65 In Mexico, the present govern-
evolved from small groups of upstate farm- ment is seeking to amend the Mexican Consti-
ers and residents, although NGOs like Food & tution in order to allow foreign companies to
Water Watch now play an important role. The develop Mexico’s energy resources. And while
groups in New York have also benefited from civil society has focused mostly on fighting the
the activism of groups in Pennsylvania, the main proposed privatization of the state owned oil
focus of which has been to alert communities company PEMEX, the amendment would also
in their neighboring state of the many negative open the door for private multinationals to de-
impacts of fracking on water supplies, property velop fracking in the Northeast and the Gulf of
values, roads and other infrastructure, and the Mexico. Pemex is already exploring for shale
health of residents.62 In the UK, anti-fracking ac- gas in the Salinas-Burgos-Picachos basin, an ex-
tivity is presently sustained by a wide range of tension of Texas’ Eagle Ford shale. The recently
groups concerned about the despoilment of the launched Mexican Alliance Against Fracking has
countryside and the negative impacts on rural urged elected representatives “to consider the
life as well as climate change and larger societal serious negative and irreversible implications
questions. [of fracking] for the Mexican people and the en-
vironment.”66
The anti-fracking movement is also quite di-
verse both in terms of its goals and the range of In a growing number of examples, opposition
issues and sentiments that generate activism. to multinationals is mixed with concerns about
In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and France, how fracking will affect people’s livelihoods
for example, the opposition to fracking is built and quality of life in the mostly rural areas
around concerns of foreign multinationals tak- where hydraulic fracturing occurs, as noted
ing over local and national resources.63 Chevron above in the case of the UK. This is evident in
recently secured 650,000 hectares of conces- many struggles, with Australia and Ireland also
sions in Romania, bringing to 800,000 hectares providing good examples.67 In the UK, the fo-
the total amount of land under its control, or cus of the first high profile, community-led op-
about 3.5% of the country’s surface territory. position to fracking emerged in a small village
Protests have focused around the village of of Balcombe, Sussex, during summer 2013.
Pungesti in the country’s North West region. The village, located 30 miles south of London,
In Poland, nine million hectares, almost a third comprises about 1700 residents of whom 85%
of the country’s entire land area, have been were polled as against fracking exploration.68
opened up to corporations for exploration and Exploratory drilling by the Caudrilla corpora-
drilling. Resistance to fracking from Poland’s ru- tion prompted a strong response from the lo-
ral communities appears to be rising, and Shell cal community, supported by the mobilization
10GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
International Energy Agency Golden Rules
The Golden Rules underline that full transparency, measuring, and monitoring of environ-
mental impacts and engagement with local communities are critical to addressing public
concerns. Careful choice of drilling sites can reduce the above-ground impacts and most
effectively target the productive areas, while minimizing any risk of earthquakes or of flu-
ids passing between geological strata. Leaks from wells into aquifers can be prevented by
high standards of well design, construction and integrity testing. Rigorous assessment and
monitoring of water requirements (for shale and tight gas), of the quality of produced water
(for coal bed methane), and of waste water for all types of unconventional gas can ensure in-
formed and stringent decisions about water handling and disposal. Production-related emis-
sions of local pollutants and greenhouse-gas emissions can be reduced by investments to
eliminate venting and flaring during the well-completion phase.
of anti-fracking activists not just from neigh- others in the movement are concerned that en-
boring towns and villages but converging from gaging in the development of regulatory frame-
all over the country. 69 Anti-fracking activity has works merely spreads the illusion that fracking
spread to the Manchester region. In Australia, can be safe if adequately regulated. They regard
protests in Melbourne against gas drilling mo- this as a gift to the gas industry, and indeed the
bilized around the slogan “Farmland not Gas- IEA has presented its Golden Rules guidelines
land.” 70 (see below) as an opportunity for the industry
to “get its act together,” and thereby achieve a
“social license to operate.”74
Regulate or Ban? Movement Divi-
sions The gas industry initially dismissed those who
have raised concerns about fracking as ideo-
The notion that fracking could perhaps be done
logically motivated individuals making claims
safely has sometimes opened up a ‘ban’ versus
that are empirically groundless and damaging
‘regulate’ divide within the anti-fracking move-
to job creation and economic growth. However,
ment.71 Though generating tensions, it has not
in 2012 the IEA acknowledged that the environ-
stopped the movement’s overall momentum.72
mental concerns about fracking were neither
Some groups have approached the issue tacti-
groundless nor trivial, and the Agency proposed
cally: by shaping emerging regulatory regimes
a series of “golden rules” for the gas industry
through grassroots activism (especially via pub-
in order to establish safe, or safer, practices fo
lic commentary periods), opponents of fracking
shale gas drilling.
can insist on regulations that are strict enough
to make fracking commercially unviable or
technically impossible. In Germany proposed
regulations—presently awaiting parliamentary The U.S. Experience with Regulation
debate—would forbid fracking near water sup- and Regulatory Processes
plies or close to national parks or conservation
areas, with each application to drill requiring its Voices in the pro-ban wing of the anti-fracking
own environmental impact study.73 However, movement have little confidence that the indus-
11GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
try will diligently observe the IEA’s golden rules, Congress, state legislators and local governmental
and they note that the capacity of authorities to bodies need to ban shale gas fracking.
regulate the industry is often weak, due to the
number of wells being constructed and the lack
of funds and inspectors—problems faced by The Case of Illinois
regulatory authorities almost everywhere. Reg-
ulators often reveal a lack of knowledge of the U.S. environmental groups that that still consid-
processes involved in fracking, making effective er shale gas to be a “bridge fuel”—such as the
regulation even more difficult. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)—
have tended to view regulation as a better op-
In the United States, state-level regulatory tion than banning fracking altogether because
agencies have been criticized for their cursory it allows for the preservation of whatever GHG
handling of gas industry permit applications. mitigating advantages gas may have over the
For example, in Pennsylvania, Republican Gov- use of coal. The NRDC calls for a halt to fracking
ernor Tom Corbett passed an executive order only “until sufficient safeguards are in place.”78
in mid-2012 aimed at speeding up the permit- However, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund
ting process handled by the State’s Department (WWF), and Friends of the Earth have all called
of Environmental Protection. Under the order, for a ban on fracking.
the timely issuing of permits became a factor in
the performance evaluation of Department em- In the case of Illinois during Spring 2013, the
ployees.75 In 2011, the Associated Press report- “regulate or ban” issue resulted in an open split
ed that state environmental regulators spend between the likes of the Sierra Club, the NRDC,
as little as 35 minutes reviewing each of the and the pro-ban groups. Believing a ban to be
thousands of applications for natural gas well beyond the capacities of the anti-fracking move-
permits.76 Environmental groups in New York ment to accomplish in the short-to-medium
State highlighted a sharp decline in the number term, the Sierra Club and NRDC decided to sup-
of well inspections after 2002, even as the num- port a bill to regulate fracking in a state where
ber of wells installed grew dramatically to over drilling appeared imminent and no effective
10,000 in 2012. Of the 155,000 wells installed in regulations were in place. In this context, they
Pennsylvania and Ohio (a combined number), argued, any set of regulations—however inade-
only around 10% have apparently been in- quate—has to be viewed as a step forward and
spected. 77 thus an opportunity to strengthen regulations
over time. The bill, which subsequently passed
A leading anti-fracking NGO, Food and Water in the state legislature, was designed to impose
Watch, argues strongly for a complete ban in safety regulations on the gas industry that,
the U.S., noting that: among other things, required all waste—which
includes “flowback” of all the chemical-laced
Fracking is exempt from key federal water protec-
water pumped into the ground—be stored in
tions, and federal and state regulators have allowed
unchecked expansion of fracking, creating wide- closed tanks, rather than the pits that chron-
spread environmental degradation. Overwhelmed ically leak and overflow elsewhere. Restrictions
state regulators largely oversee the practice. Even were introduced on venting and flaring of natu-
if the laws on the books were strengthened, frack- ral gas (which contains the potent greenhouse
ing poses too severe a risk to public health and
gas methane, as well as other harmful constitu-
the environment to entrust effective and rigorous
ents, and turns to smog), and a ban on the dan-
regulatory oversight to these officials. Both state
and federal regulators have a poor track record of gerous practice of injecting diesel (which con-
protecting the public from the impacts of fracking. tains carcinogenic hydrocarbons).79
12GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
The pro-ban, anti-fracking organizations were and eleven states declared this form of disclo-
emphatically opposed to the legislation. In the sure permissible.
words of one pro-ban activist:
An April 2013 report issued by Harvard Law
Regulations cannot prevent well casings from leak- School on the regulation of fracking noted:
ing as they age and fail. Or keep methane from mi-
grating through underground faults. Or eliminate Incomplete and inaccurate disclosures serve no
the 24/7 noise pollution from drilling. Regulations public purpose. If a property owner searches for a
cannot keep benzene from rising out of boreholes. well form on FracFocus, she may find that the form
There is no good storage solution for radioactive omits information required by the state, contains
wastewater. And the jobs fracking provides are nonexistent Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) num-
temporary and toxic.80 bers, or hides the identity of chemicals. Unable to
search across forms, the property owner will not
Fracking is now being proposed in California know that other forms disclose chemicals withheld
where large shale gas deposits have been dis- in this form or list different ingredients for the same
covered. In September 2013, California voted to product. If she asks for more information from
FracFocus she will be denied on the grounds that
regulate fracking. The bill was criticized by the
the site’s organizers are not subject to state or fed-
NRDC and other environmental groups as be- eral public records laws.85
ing too lax and the growing anti-fracking move-
ment in California has viewed the regulations as Concerns about the chemicals and their imme-
a means of reassuring the public that fracking diate and long-term impacts remain high and
can be safe in the hope that opposition to frack- the confidence of grassroots anti-fracking activ-
ing will dissipate.81 ists in the industry’s capacity for self-regulation
appears to be correspondingly low.
U.S. Federal Regulation – and Indus- The recent studies drawing attention to both
try Self-Regulation the levels and likely severe implications of fugi-
tive methane (discussed above) raise a new set
In October 2012, the Obama Administration of- of questions regarding the capacity of the in-
fered millions of acres of America’s public lands dustry to either regulate itself or be regulated at
for oil and gas development accompanied by a level that is considered satisfactory. Adequate
assurances that drilling approved on these ter- regulation of methane leakage from fracking
ritories would be subject to federal regulation.82 could be even more elusive than using regula-
The U.S. Department of the Interior issued draft tory measures to protect water systems from
regulations addressing hydraulic fracturing on contamination. Additionally, fugitive methane
public lands. The proposals, which generated turns what might be dismissed as a local issue
more than 177,000 comments during the public affecting water into a global issue affecting the
comment period, required companies to dis- entire planet. Thus the “regulate or ban” ques-
close fracking chemicals and verify that harmful tion now has global significance.
fluids stay out of groundwater.83 The method
of disclosure however, remains controversial.
In April 2011, a voluntary chemical disclosure From Local Struggles to National
registry was launched for companies develop- Moratoriums
ing unconventional oil and gas wells, involving
a website, FracFocus, where well operators and Local actions to restrict and stop fracking have
service companies report their chemical use to produced visible results. In New York State,
an online registry.84 The Obama administration Governor Andrew Cuomo has yet (June 2014)
13GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
to decide whether the present moratorium on application by the energy company Cuadrilla
new fracking will be lifted or not.86 Neverthe- “without even the briefest discussion.”91
less, more than 100 New York communities
have initiated bans on fracking. Numerous mu- However, achieving a moratorium is no guar-
nicipalities in other states across the adjoining antee of a final victory against fracking. The
Marcellus and Utica shale regions—as well as gas industry has applied immense pressure to
some in the more conservative Texas—have in- remove any moratoriums that have been put
stituted local bans. Groups throughout the U.S.’ in place, with South Africa and Romania both
Marcellus shale region have implemented local buckling under the pressure.92 France continues
ordinances regulating aspects of drilling activity to be pressured to reverse its decision. Interest-
from truck traffic to noise levels. New York State ingly, activist groups in France initially called for
courts have upheld local bans against industry a six-month moratorium to study the environ-
lawsuits, setting a precedent that may be en- mental impact of fracking but later called for a
shrined in the state’s energy policy.87 permanent ban. In Bulgaria, activists called for
a legal ban to succeed the current moratorium,
Aside from New York, no other state in the U.S. as have German anti-fracking activists in North
has a moratorium in place, either temporary Rhine-Westphalia. In Canada, sustained activism
or permanent. However, the list of countries resulted in the Quebec regional government’s
where moratoriums have been introduced is introduction of a partial moratorium to allow for
growing, even if some have since been rescind- time to study environmental impacts. A bill to
ed. A number of countries, including Bulgaria, ban fracking for an additional five years was sub-
the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Luxem- mitted to the Quebec national assembly in June
bourg, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ire- 2013.93 In Romania, Prime Minister Victor Pon-
land, Romania, and South Africa, have imposed ta’s government imposed a moratorium in May
moratoriums on fracking. A moratorium is in 2012 pending the completion of the then ongo-
place in the Czech Republic at least until the ing European-level studies on the environmen-
middle of 2014.88 Regional moratoriums are in tal impact of fracking. The moratorium ended in
place in the province of Quebec, Canada, and in December 2012 and has not been extended. In
Victoria and New South Wales, Australia.89 January 2013, Prime Minister Ponta announced
that shale gas exploration should be considered
In France, drilling permits were issued in 2010 as something positive. The protests against the
without public consultation in three locations, government continue as of this publication.
with 64 additional locations pending. This led
to a grassroots movement that pressured local
authorities to ban fracking, eventually leading A Global Movement Emerging?
to a national moratorium in July 2011.90
Anti-fracking activism has grown from small
Local actions also appear to be on the increase local pockets of resistance to a nascent global
in countries where proposed moratoriums have movement in recent years. Several cross-na-
been defeated or have yet to gain sufficient tional initiatives have emerged in the last few
support to influence a national or parliamen- years. In 2012, the Treasure Karoo Action Group
tary decision. In Poland, districts have banded based in South Africa forged a partnership with
together using private property rights, consent U.S. NGO Water Defense.94 Similarly, in 2012,
requirements, and formal petitions to deflect the UK’s Frack Off group and Bulgaria’s Civil So-
exploratory drilling. In the U.K., the village of ciety Against Shale Gas joined forces to mobilize
Balcombe’s Parish Council rejected a drilling grassroots activists against shale gas leases in
14GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
Romania’s Dobruja region. The desire to protect Meanwhile, French and particularly German
the Danube River from contamination has pro- anti-fracking activists are also active in Poland’s
vided the basis for cross-border solidarity and anti-fracking movement. International environ-
coordination between the anti-fracking move- mental NGOs have also played a key network-
ments in Bulgaria and Romania (the Danube ing role, supporting local anti-fracking groups
runs through both countries). The movements, and drawing attention to the global climate im-
which are organized around the slogan “Two pacts of fracking.
peoples, one river,” have staged coordinated
protests in a number of cities on either side of The September 2012 and October 2013 Glob-
the border. In Bulgaria, the region where Chev- al Frackdown demonstrations offer yet more
ron intends to drill is a major wheat producer evidence that a global movement is emerg-
and considered to be the agricultural heartland ing to tie the work of local groups together.96
of the country. Protesters carry loaves of bread Led by Food and Water Watch, Global Frack-
as they march, drawing attention to their con- down includes affiliated organizations in six
cerns about water and soil contamination.95 continents.
Trade Unions and Fracking
Shale gas exploration and drilling using hydrau- with the Building and Construction Trades De-
lic fracturing began just over a decade ago in partment (BCTD) of the AFL-CIO.98 The BCTD
Texas. It has since spread to seventeen U.S. represents two million workers in the U.S. and
states, is moving forward in Canada, and is pro- Canada and has forged a close and increasingly
posed or already occurring in roughly a dozen public alliance with the oil and gas industry.99
countries. In 2012 fracking was a $37 billion in- In June 2009, the American Petroleum Institute
dustry, according to one estimate.97 and fifteen labor unions announced “the his-
toric creation of the Oil and Natural Gas Indus-
Union responses to fracking are reviewed be- try Labor-Management Committee, which will
low, beginning with the U.S. and Canada. As work to promote job retention and growth… by
noted above, 87% of the world’s fracking is hap- promoting innovative and affordable access to
pening in North America and unions around the energy that is vital to the American economy.”
world could benefit from learning how unions The committee would engage in “a communi-
in these two countries have responded both to cations effort to educate the public and other
fracking and to the opposition movement that stakeholders about the effects of legislation
has emerged. Global trade union bodies and na- that would restrict exploration or hinder pro-
tional centers outside the U.S. and Canada have cessing, refining and marketing of U.S. oil and
also begun to respond to fracking—a summary natural gas products.”100
of these responses is also provided as well.
The BCTD’s alliance with the oil and gas industry
has been the source of numerous pro-fracking
The United States and Canada resolutions adopted by state-level federations
of the AFL-CIO. In the public discourse, unions
In the U.S., union positions on fracking have have been mostly in favor of fracking and there-
been largely shaped by those unions affiliated fore opposed to any proposed or existing mor-
15GLOBAL SHALE GAS AND THE ANTI-FRACKING MOVEMENT
Developing Union Perspectives and Approaches
atoriums. This has been evident in key fracking try agreeing to enter into Project Labor Agree-
states such as Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsyl- ments (PLA) to hire union workers. The unions
vania, Texas, and West Virginia. In these states, opposed to fracking are almost invariably in a
unions have stood alongside the Chambers of completely different situation. Their employers
Commerce, the National Association of Manu- are normally not affected; they often have no
facturers, and the American Petroleum Institute jobs to gain or lose; and the decision to oppose
in supporting and promoting fracking.101 Unions fracking must be made for a different set of
and industry have campaigned to promote reasons—such as concerns about public health,
shale gas drilling in the Marcellus shale, which climate change, solidarity with those struggling
spans several states, including Pennsylvania against the industry, and so on. Many unions
and New York.102 would prefer not to publicly oppose something
that another union or group of unions support,
However, not all U.S. unions support fracking. which also dampens opposition. Furthermore,
In New York, the State AFL-CIO has not taken fracking is not happening everywhere in the
a position, despite the fact that both the Inter- U.S., so unions in states not affected by fracking
national Union of Operating Engineers and the are far less likely to take a position. As a result,
Northeast Council of Carpenters have joined the most of the large U.S. unions not in the BCTD
pro-industry Clean Growth Now coalition.103 In remain effectively neutral. The main national
September 2012, the New York City-based Dis- coalition—Americans Against Fracking—lists
trict Council 37, AFSCME (representing 140,000 only one union in its long list of allies, namely
public sector workers) called for a ban on frack- National Nurses United.109
ing, citing concerns around toxic exposure for
members of a union local (branch) representing Unions in the U.S. have expressed concerns
public water and sanitation workers.104 The NY with regard to the health and safety of work-
State Nurses Association has also been a visible ers involved in shale gas drilling. The AFL-CIO,
part of the anti-fracking movement. In Califor- the United Steelworkers, and the United Mine
nia, AFSCME’s District Council 57105 and the Cal- Workers have lobbied regulatory authorities
ifornia Nurses Association, together represent- with regard to the risks facing workers exposed
ing over 100,000 workers, are both opposed to to crystalline silica, which is used in fracking. A
fracking.106 In Pennsylvania, union opposition study by the National Institute for Occupational
is weak with perhaps only the Communication Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported high levels
Workers of America Local 1104 (10,000 mem- of worker exposure to this substance, which is
bers) opposed to fracking and supportive of a known to cause cancer as well as silicosis.110 It
state-wide ban.107 In Texas, union support, while also noted the high levels of fracking industry
visible, has been lukewarm because the quality fatalities as a result of motor vehicle crashes,
of the jobs created by the shale gas industry is explosions, and accidents involving other ma-
often poor.108 chinery, resulting in a call for tougher standards
by unions. Many pro-fracking unions seldom, if
Overall, union opposition to fracking has been ever, acknowledge the public health concerns
slow to surface, whereas unions that support raised by groups that oppose fracking due to
fracking have been well organized and visible. its use of toxic chemicals and the risk of wa-
There are several reasons for this disparity. The ter contamination, spills, and explosions from
pro-fracking unions in the BCTD are in a trans- fracking.111
actional arrangement with the oil and gas in-
dustry whereby the unions’ political advocacy is The Canadian trade unions’ approach to fracking
expected by the industry in return for the indus- often contrasts quite sharply with the pro-frack-
16You can also read
