Friday, February 28, 2014

“These are our neighbours, these are people in our communities who have very difficult situations in their homes. We need to start paying attention to each other,” Bhullar said. “We start talking openly about a system, we get rid of this idea that it is us against them. … In a climate without fear and without stigma, people working in the system and people using the system can do so without fear, and without shame.



we weren't the ones
who called the others
environmental radicals

we weren't the ones
who said that the children
must be invisible and their stories hidden

we weren't the ones
who put the files on foster children
into the deep freeze from 1999 to 2013

we weren't the ones
who silenced the mothers
and told the media that they had no access

we weren't the ones
who called the mothers Wiebo Ludwig mummies
and we weren't the ones who refused to respect the people


we weren't the ones
we weren't the ones
we weren't the ones



http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/edmonton/Families+will+free+speak+about+children+have+died+care/9565486/story.html

Families will be free to speak about children who have died in care: Alberta human services minister

 

 
 
 
 
Families will be free to speak about children who have died in care: Alberta human services minister
 

Manmeet Bhullar, minister of human services, says he will repeal a publication ban that makes it illegal to publicly identify a child who died in foster care or while receiving child welfare services.

Photograph by: Shaughn Butts , Edmonton Journal

EDMONTON - The Alberta government will repeal a “dehumanizing” publication ban that makes it illegal to publicly identify a child who died in foster care or while receiving child welfare services.
In an editorial published Saturday in the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald, Human Services Minister Manmeet Bhullar says he will introduce legislation to amend the ban so those closest to children who have died can speak publicly about their loved ones, and so news outlets can publish their names and photographs.
“If families feel they have been wronged, or if they just want to celebrate the life of a young person, they should have the right to do so,” Bhullar said in an interview.
“By the same token, they have the right to stand up and demand that no one publish the name of their child. That is … not a right that government should hold.”
Alberta is one of just two Canadian provinces that enforces a total ban on the publication of names and photos of children who die inside the child welfare system.
The sweeping publication ban came into effect in 2005 with the introduction of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act.
Since then, families who wished to speak publicly about their child’s death had to have the ban overturned by a judge — a costly and time-consuming process that is not always successful.
The provincial government has previously argued the law was necessary to protect the families of children who had died, including siblings who were still in care. Critics said the law more effectively protected the child welfare system from scrutiny. A provincial court judge called the law “dehumanizing.”
“This is enormous. It is such a huge step forward,” said Velvet Martin, a spokeswoman for the Alberta chapter of Protecting Canadian Children, who had the ban overturned after her daughter, Samantha, died. “This shows the lives of these children were important.”
The government has not yet said when the amendments will be tabled in the legislature or precisely how the revised act will read.
Bhullar said the publication ban will remain in place for living children who are in the care of or receiving services from the province, as well as for siblings of children who have died in care.
“These are our neighbours, these are people in our communities who have very difficult situations in their homes. We need to start paying attention to each other,” Bhullar said.
“We start talking openly about a system, we get rid of this idea that it is us against them. … In a climate without fear and without stigma, people working in the system and people using the system can do so without fear, and without shame.
“I want any family in Alberta to feel more comfortable picking up the phone and saying: ‘I need help.’ ”

--- speak carefully for they are listening to us and although we speak for our children they consider us the enemy--------------------Meanwhile another Alberta family from central Alberta has sued Angle Energy for fracturing and contaminating local groundwater. TalismanPondA_300px.jpg Talisman's 12 metre-deep "Pond A" in 2010. B.C.'s Oil and Gas Commission is investigating a possible leak of toxic frackwater. Photo by Will Koop An 11-page statement of claim by plaintiff Diana Daunheimer states that "Any reasonable person in our situation would have been damaged by Angle Energy's breach in duty. Angle Energy continues to breach this duty by causing and continuing to allow hazardous chemicals to remain in the ground surrounding and beneath the plaintiff's property and in the Daunheimer residence water supply and allow the continual emissions from venting and instrument operations."



who will be the new jew in Canada?



Fracking Fighter Jessica Ernst Appeals Court Ruling

Oil patch consultant challenges decision granting Alberta Energy Regulator immunity from damage claims.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, 21 Dec 2013, TheTyee.ca
JessicaErnstWater_600px.jpg
Jessica Ernst on her land in Alberta. Photo: Colin Smith.

Related

Jessica Ernst, whose landmark multi-million dollar lawsuit challenges the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, has filed an appeal against a court ruling that granted that Alberta's Energy Regulator blanket "immunity" from civil action.
In a lengthy 41-page ruling Alberta Chief Justice Neil Wittmann struck the energy regulator from the lawsuit last September but ruled that the claims against Alberta Environment and Encana Corporation could proceed.
The appeal says that Justice Wittmann erred in finding that the Energy Resources Conservation Act granted the provincial energy regulator immunity from either "negligent omissions" or from acts undermining Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms such as breaches of freedom of expression.
"The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has ruled that in this case, the energy regulator is virtually untouchable -- that the ERCB cannot be sued for violating the constitutional free speech rights of a private citizen, and in fact, cannot be sued no matter how badly the regulator behaves," said Murray Klippenstein, lawyer for Ms. Ernst.
"Ms. Ernst thinks this is wrong. She believes that Albertans deserve much better from their energy regulator. This is why Ms. Ernst is appealing."
The lawsuit alleges that Encana, a pioneer of hydraulic fracturing, drilled and fractured shallow coal bed methane wells directly in the local groundwater supply between 2001 and 2004 near Rosebud, Alberta, polluting Ernst's water well with enough toxic chemicals and methane to make it flammable.
The suit also alleges that two provincial regulators, (the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment), not only failed to act on documented and repeated violations of the law but ceased all communication with the seasoned oil patch consultant on the grounds that she posed "criminal threats."
Members of Alberta Environment dismissed some methane contamination of water wells as "natural" and allegedly accused Ernst of forging signatures and a professional seal, as well as falsifying data in a private hydrological report that found evidence of Encana fracking into a local aquifer in Rosebud, Alberta.
'No faith in Alberta justice': Ernst
The 56-year-old scientist, whose lawsuit has made her a folk hero in the Maritimes, the United States, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, has worked for scores of energy companies as either a land agent or as an environmental consultant.
Major clients of her incorporated environmental business included Encana as well as the North American Oil Sands Corporation which was eventually bought by Statoil.
"I have now seen what justice is in Alberta and I have no faith in it," Ernst told The Tyee. "But I see that as no reason to give up and no reason not to file an appeal. The breach of my Charter Rights is important to all Canadians and this fracking industry wants to take away all of our rights and so does the Harper government."
"When you are at war -- you don't throw down your shield and sword and run. You have to defend our constitutional rights. I think we are going to win. It's just so important."
Ernst is not the only landowner to have been "banished" from communicating with the regulator.
After Carmen Langer, a rancher in Peace River, persistently complained about air pollution from venting bitumen batteries and storage tanks, the regulator banned him from communicating directly with staff.
"They said I was a threat and that I wasn't a nice guy. I said how would you feel if you had your fucking head in a bitumen tank for a while. You have to stand up to bullies to defend your rights in this province."
His complaints forced an ongoing public investigation into "odours and emissions" from bitumen operations that sickened cattle and forced six families to abandon their homes.
'No duty of care'
During initial hearings on the Ernst case lawyers representing what is now the Alberta Energy Regulator argued that the nation's most powerful regulatory body had "no duty of care" to groundwater, a public resource, or to landowners dependent upon that resource.
Meanwhile the Alberta government, which receives 30 per cent of its revenue from the exploitation of hydrocarbons, has abruptly applied to Judge Wittmann, a Harper appointee, to be dismissed from the claim five years after the fact.
"They are trying to waste my time and money and make me quit," says Ernst. "Let's get on with this trial and find out what chemicals Encana injected into our water in Rosebud and let's stop this circus."
Encana, which has suffered financial losses due to bad investments in shale gas, never asked for any part of the claim to be struck. The company's statement of defence was filed last August but only after receiving an order from Judge Wittmann.
Its statement argues that the company did not frack any coal-bed methane wells but merely "stimulated" them.
Hydraulic fracturing, the high pressurized detonation of hydrocarbon-bearing formations with gases or water and chemicals, has driven a boom in unconventional shale oil and gas over the last decade.
The so-called "revolution" has produced large amounts of previously untapped natural gas while it has industrialized rural communities, contaminated groundwater, aggravated methane leaks at well sites, polluted the air with toxic flaring and venting and even caused earthquakes. The boom caught regulators unprepared and has generated major legal challenges across North America.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, just declared key parts of the state's Marcellus Shale drilling law (Act 13) unconstitutional last Thursday, including a provision that allows gas companies to drill anywhere.
"By any responsible account," Chief Justice Ronald Castille wrote, "the exploitation of the Marcellus Shale Formation will produce a detrimental effect on the environment, on the people, their children and the future generations, and potentially on the public purse, perhaps rivaling the environmental effects of coal extraction."
Another suit
Meanwhile another Alberta family from central Alberta has sued Angle Energy for fracturing and contaminating local groundwater.
TalismanPondA_300px.jpg
Talisman's 12 metre-deep "Pond A" in 2010. B.C.'s Oil and Gas Commission is investigating a possible leak of toxic frackwater. Photo by Will Koop
An 11-page statement of claim by plaintiff Diana Daunheimer states that "Any reasonable person in our situation would have been damaged by Angle Energy's breach in duty. Angle Energy continues to breach this duty by causing and continuing to allow hazardous chemicals to remain in the ground surrounding and beneath the plaintiff's property and in the Daunheimer residence water supply and allow the continual emissions from venting and instrument operations."
The allegations have yet to be tested in court.
In the last four years, multi-stage hydraulic fracking of horizontal wells for oil has exploded in the province. About 77 per cent of all new oil wells drilled in Alberta (2,379 wells out of 3107) in 2010 were fracked.
Complaints about air pollution, earthquakes, methane leaks, land devaluation and shoddy regulation have also steeply increased.
British Columbia's Oil and Gas Commission is currently investigating Calgary-based Talisman for a serious case of groundwater and soil contamination involving hydraulic fracturing waste water in the Farrell Creek area of the Montney gas play.
In addition there have been more than 25 cases of companies "communicating" with other company well sites with high pressured blasts of water, sand and frack fluids in northern B.C.  [Tyee]
Read more: EnergyHealthEnvironment



http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014-02-06-Diana-Daunheimer.jpg





Posted on February 20, 2014
In the autumn of 2013 citizens in Lethbridge mobilized in response to news that a Chinese-backed firm, Goldenkey Oil Company, had been extended mineral rights to frack and drill in territory that includes a ten square mile plot of municipal land hosting several schools, 4,000 homes and 10,000 citizens of urban Lethbridge. One of those schools is the University of Lethbridge where I have been a faculty member since 1990.
The upsurge of citizens’ resistance to urban drilling and fracking reminds me of the water war that engulfed this southern Albertan town of 90,000 people when I first arrived here from Ontario. In 1990 the community went into convulsions when a group, Peigan Indians, who identified themselves as the Lonefighters’ Society, opposed the Alberta government’s raising of the Oldman River Dam just upstream from their Indian reserve. The Lonefighters marked their opposition by using heavy machinery to divert water from the weir directing some of the Oldman River’s flow into the irrigation canal of the Lethbridge North Irrigation District (LNID). The LNID is one of the bastions of the Conservative power base in this notoriously right-wing part of Canada.
The Oldman River Dam
The current controversy over urban fracking in Lethbridge is something akin to the commotion created by the negative response to the Lonefighters’ calling into question the legal legitimacy of the Oldman Dam. Where the Lonefighters’ stand was exploited to generate support for the ruling party, the old status quo so far is being undermined by public responses to the frack attack on West Lethbridge.
In this arid part of Canada, where cactus plants grow amidst the dwindling natural domain of wild grasses, the politics of access to, as well as treatment of, fresh water is especially contentious. Situated on the west bank of the Oldman River just across from Goldenkey’s Penny Project, drilling and fracking on the Blood Tribe reserve is already undermining the quality of Lethbridge’s public water supplies.
The urban frack attack on Lethbridge is but a small part of a massive assault on the quality of public health and the environment throughout Alberta. In a single year applications and approvals for drilling and fracking went up 650%, causing some to characterize the provincial government led by Alison Redford as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chinese and Texas-based oil and gas sector. A telling indicator of the extent of the conflict-of-interest is that the staff of the Alberta Energy Regulator is paid 100% by the very industry supposedly being regulated.
The floodgates for the deluge of new extractive activity, extending even into urban areas, was opened in part by key provisions hidden amongst the verbiage of the Harper government’s Omnibus Bills, C-38 and C-45. It was this federal legislation that proved to be the catalyst for the Idle No More movement in the autumn of 2012. The so-called Omnibus Bills included provisions reflecting the Harper government’s attempt to withdraw federal constitutional responsibility from inland waters and thereby open the way for further provincialization of procedures for the extraction and transport of natural resources.
The Opposition
The dominant industrial modus operendi currently in Alberta is based on the principle that oil and water mix.  Huge quantities of fresh water are being degraded in the dirty production of bitumen, oil, and natural gas. Those conducting the “No Drilling in the City of Lethbridge” campaign, so far at least, have chosen to highlight a number of issues besides the contamination of fresh water. These include the prospect of house prices dropping by about 16%, the possibility that West Lethbridge would have to be evacuated if sour gas is emitted in a blowout, and the dangers posed by the large scale transport of dangerous chemicals and highly flammable cargoes through local neighbourhoods.  
The Public and Roman Catholic Schools boards were both fast off the mark to condemn urban fracking in West Lethbridge. The Mayor and City Council made similar stances, pointing out problems in the distribution of powers that preclude them from having a binding say in the decision of whether or not urban fracking takes place. The Lethbridge Real Estate Association added its voice to the naysayers as the number of signatures of those opposed to the Goldenkey project neared 10,000. At the time of this writing, the Board of Governors of the University of Lethbridge held back from coming out against the Goldenkey plan although over sixty faculty members have signed a letter encouraging our school’s directing body to join with the other school boards in banning drilling and fracking in the neighbourhood of schools.
The Lethbridge Chamber of Commerce has been conspicuously absent in opposition to the urban frack attack. In his summary of who has or has not stepped forward to be counted, local public intellectual Al Barnhill commented in the Lethbridge Herald, “Where are the medical people – doctors, nurses, dentists? Other than a handful of responsible health professionals who signed petitions and attended meetings, one might believe their associations don’t care enough about community health to have a leading role in opposing such a risky exploitation as drilling oil wells in residential areas.”

The Larger Context
The swelling opposition to this plan to industrialize the growing and thriving residential settlement in West Lethbridge is part of a worldwide pattern. The well-known British Columbian scholar and pundit, Robin Mathews, has characterized this transnational phenomenon in his exposé of the behind-the-scenes skullduggery deployed to bring about the juridical defeat of Jessica Ernst, the environmental biologist who took the Encana Corporation to court for contaminating her well water in Rosebud Alberta. Mathews writes “All over the globe fracking is fouling drinking water, lowering water tables, and endangering agriculture… All over the globe people are being affected, waking up alarmed, calling for investigation, research, regulation, laws to control fracking.”
In his investigative piece Mathews points out that the original judge appointed to the Ernst case, Justice Barbara Veldhuis, was removed from the matter at an advanced stage in the trial. To Mathews, who attended the legal proceedings, the whole process smacked of “sham, smoke-and-mirrors, fraud.” Judge Veldhuis was promoted mid-trial and sent to the Appeals Court of Alberta when it appeared the jurist had some positive regard for the legal arguments being brought forward on behalf of Ms. Ernst.
Judge Veldhuis was replaced by Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Neil Wittman. Judge Wittman ruled that the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has no “duty of care” and that this agency cannot be sued by those who are negatively affected by its decisions. A blazing symbol of the extent of conflict-of-interest permeating many aspects of governance in the virtual one-part state of Alberta, 100% of the wages and other costs of the Alberta Energy Regulator are paid by the very industry subject to the AER’s rulings.
Risky Business
Recognition that fracking is dangerous to public health, environmental integrity, and agricultural enterprise is reflected by the fact that this extractive activity has been banned in a number of countries including France, Germany South Africa, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Luxenbourg. Fracking has also been prohibited in the Canadian petro-province of Newfoundland and in the urban municipalities of Pittsburgh, Denver and Hamilton Ontario. Similarly, there is intense popular opposition to fracking in many jurisdictions whose governments do officially embrace it— governments like those of New Brunswick, Pennsylvania, Romania, California, and some districts of England.  The resort to direct action in these and other jurisdictions demonstrates that some citizens are made to feel so disempowered that the only remaining venue of meaningful opposition to fracking is to throw their bodies in the path of the onslaught.  
The limited water resources of arid southwestern Alberta pose the most obvious obstacle to transforming a zone of large-scale agriculture, recreation and education into a gas-rush-boom-and-bust economy marked by the proliferation of many thousands of fracking wells. To draw out the fossil fuel embedded in shale, deep horizontal drilling is followed at every well by the injection of literally millions of gallons of chemical-laced water that is volatile enough to explode open and shatter the existing subsurface geology. This feature of fracking contributes to the increased levels of earthquake activity that has been observed in many jurisdictions where the landscape has been subjected to this very intense form of industrial violence.
The rapid injection of these millions of gallons of supercharged chemical can be repeated up to 18 times for each well. Some of the used fracking brew will be retrieved at the wellheads to be hauled away for use at other sites and eventually transported to toxic waste dumps. Where are such dumps to be located? Who will operate them? Where will the makers of the Alberta Bakken play find the water they need? Will the fracking companies be charged for the true commercial value of fresh water or will they be subsidized at the expense of taxpayers, public health, and environmental integrity? What fresh water will be left for other users? Will there be any fresh pure water available any more once southern Alberta is fracked out? Such basic questions are especially pertinent in a region where irrigation farming and very large feedlots are already overtaxing the limited run-off coming from eastern slopes of the Rockies, already an area where glaciers are quickly shrinking.
The dangers of transporting poisonous and highly flammable industrial products to and from fracking wells and then to refineries and markets was dramatically illustrated last summer by the lethal train disaster at Lac-Mégantic Quebec. The worst explosions involved train cars carrying product from the Bakken shale formations in North Dakota. As The Globe and Mail reported in December of 2013, “Bakken oil is potentially more hazardous than conventional crude because it is lighter and contains a number of gases and compounds, such as methane and propane, that can make it more corrosive and volatile.”
Let me conclude by picturing Lethbridge’s intake pipe to the water treatment plant on the Oldman River. This aquatic intake is already bringing into our community’s tap water toxins used in the industrial chemistry of extracting oil and gas from upstream wells, including those presently operating on the nearby Blood Tribe reserve. How many in the Lethbridge area have already determined that our tap water is not to be trusted as a safe source for drinking, bathing, and the hydrogenation of crops and domesticated animals? What would be the consequences for our tap water and public health of expanding the number of fracking wells in our local watershed to hundreds or even thousands of times the present number?
As citizens push for a ban on urban fracking in Lethbridge, we need to begin by demanding a moratorium on all future fracking projects in southwestern Alberta until the current inhabitants are given a full accounting of what has already been done and of plans being made for oil and gas exploration and exploitation in our region. We need to be attentive to preserving what is left of precious and dwindling fresh water supplies, an imperiled resource essential to the renewal of all life on earth.
***
Anthony Hall is Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta.
FMI go to www.nodrillinglethbridge.cawww.klew.org or No Drilling In Lethbridge on Facebook.
- See more at: http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/node/1849#sthash.BoSSjg8d.dpuf






DOWNLOAD THE PETITION
You can download the petitionand collect signatures or call us at 587-425-1789 and we will get a petition pack to you. Deadline for petition tentatively set for February 28, 2014. We will submit the petition to the Legislate.



Lethbridge City Council, Lethbridge School District No.51 Board of Trustees, and the Holy Spirit Catholic School Board have all publicly expressed their opposition to Goldenkey Oil’s proposal to drill. Recently the Lethbridge Chamber of Commerce, Lethbridge and District Association of REALTORS® and the University of Lethbridge have also expressed their concern. Over 8000 residents have signed a petition against urban drilling In Lethbridge. Despite the magnitude of opposition in our community, the final decision on whether or not this urban drilling project will proceed rests with the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Minister of Energy. No Drilling Lethbridge is encouraging all residents of Lethbridge to write to your MLA’s and the Minister of Energy, sign our petition, and file a Statement of Concern with the Alberta Energy Regulator.















Frac threat charges laid

Tuesday, Mar 27, 2012 06:00 am | LEA SMALDON AND JOHN GLEESON

Noel West/Mountain View Gazette
Noel West/Mountain View Gazette
Kim Mildenstein at the March 14 MVC council meeting.
view all photos (1)
An Eagle Valley woman charged last week with two counts of uttering threats was the same woman pictured on the cover of last week’s Gazette, wearing a pink T-shirt with the words “FRACK OFF CANCER.”
The photo was taken in the Mountain View County council chamber during Div. 6 Coun. Paddy Munro’s 90-minute presentation on hydraulic fracturing on Wednesday, March 14, one day before the alleged incident.
Last Thursday, Sundre RCMP charged Kim Mildenstein, 39, with two counts of uttering threats after investigating an Energy and Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) complaint about a faxed Objection To An Energy Resources Project form it received March 15.
The document writer raised an unresolved concern with NAL Energy regarding a fracking and flaring project at 13-30-33-04-W5 in Mountain View County, a few miles north east of Sundre in the Eagle Valley area.
“If you frack I will blow up your well and shoot bullets at your crew NAL. You are at risk. You are placing employees at risk,” a portion of the signed document states.
The form is alleged to have been filled out and submitted to the ERCB’s Calgary office by one of the two Mountain View County people Sundre RCMP arrested March 15 in connection with the investigation.
Both people, who live near the wellsite, were released from police custody the same day as their arrest with undertakings to have no contact with the company or its employees and to not possess any firearms or explosives.
Mildenstein is the only person who has been charged in the case and continues to be under the conditions of her release.
“No other charges are being contemplated at this time,” said Sundre RCMP Percy Leipnitz.
She is scheduled to appear in Didsbury Provincial Court on April 23.
Depending on whether the charges are treated as summary or indictable offences, uttering threats can carry a penalty of a fine or up to a maximum of five years in jail.
In November, the Gazette ran a story on Mildenstein’s efforts to spur the county and oil and gas companies to take prompt action to remedy ongoing traffic concerns in Eagle Valley.
Mildenstein presented a list of requests and a litany of concerns when she met with county officials and ERCB representatives at the offices of the Sundre Petroleum Operators Group in Sundre on Oct. 31. She said residents had been put at risk by excessive speeds, dangerous driving and the inordinate volume of traffic resulting from high oil and gas activity in the area.
“One truck per minute per hour – that’s what our neighbour calculated,” Mildenstein said. “That was for four months straight, day and night. You can imagine how hard it was to sleep with the jake brakes going into the valley.”
Mildenstein said she filed at least 10 objections through the ERCB website after school buses returned to the roads last fall, and traffic had decreased since then. Her presentation also called for the ERCB to follow its directives on flaring and incineration and for companies to require drivers to post phone numbers on their vehicles and show respect to area residents.
Many of her points were identical or similar to those raised by residents in early September at a public meeting in Eagle Hill.
Last week, SPOG executive director Tracey McCrimmon said Mildenstein had attended a SPOG stakeholders’ meeting on the Monday prior to Munro’s presentation.
“She had the same shirt on at the meeting and sat at a table and was very respectful,” McCrimmon said. “She engaged some industry folks in some great discussion.”
McCrimmon said she saw Mildenstein at the Wednesday council meeting “and talked to her briefly afterward.”
ERCB spokesperson Bob Curan said the ERCB rarely receives correspondence it perceives to be threatening.
The document writer raised concerns over water contamination from fracking.
The document says: “Mountain View County does not approve the use of potable water by NAL Energy for frack operations. Eagle Valley does not permit you to frack this location until BTX water testing (Baseline) has been conducted prior to your frack and flare job. All cattle water wells, house tap water needs to be BTX sampled 1st. Without baseline water testing the neighbours surrounding this site you will be sued. Concern is Water Aquifer Contamination - you are liable for any water contamination,” the letter reads. If you frack I will blow up your well and shoot bullets at your crew NAL. You are at RISK. You are placing employees at risk.”
The document writer then wrote: “Request FRACK FLUID LIST faxed to my home. (STOP CANCER)” and it was signed by one of two people listed as the contacts on the form.





'No Duty of Care'

'She’s not on a crusade. She’s a mom concerned about her children’s safety' 

Are Captive Regulators Failing Young Mothers Trying to Protect Their Children?

An Eagle Valley woman charged last week with two counts of uttering threats was the same woman pictured on the cover of last week’s Gazette, wearing a pink T-shirt with the words “FRACK OFF CANCER.”
... Last Thursday, Sundre RCMP charged Kim Mildenstein, 39, with two counts of uttering threats after investigating an Energy and Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) complaint about a faxed Objection To An Energy Resources Project form it received March 15.
The document writer raised an unresolved concern with NAL Energy regarding a fracking and flaring project at 13-30-33-04-W5 in Mountain View County, a few miles north east of Sundre in the Eagle Valley area.
... In November, the Gazette ran a story on Mildenstein’s efforts to spur the county and oil and gas companies to take prompt action to remedy ongoing traffic concerns in Eagle Valley.
Mildenstein presented a list of requests and a litany of concerns when she met with county officials and ERCB representatives at the offices of the Sundre Petroleum Operators Group in Sundre on Oct. 31. She said residents had been put at risk by excessive speeds, dangerous driving and the inordinate volume of traffic resulting from high oil and gas activity in the area.
“One truck per minute per hour – that’s what our neighbour calculated,” Mildenstein said. “That was for four months straight, day and night. You can imagine how hard it was to sleep with the jake brakes going into the valley.”
Mildenstein said she filed at least 10 objections through the ERCB website after school buses returned to the roads last fall, and traffic had decreased since then. Her presentation also called for the ERCB to follow its directives on flaring and incineration and for companies to require drivers to post phone numbers on their vehicles and show respect to area residents.
Many of her points were identical or similar to those raised by residents in early September at a public meeting in Eagle Hill.
... ERCB spokesperson Bob Curan said the ERCB rarely receives correspondence it perceives to be threatening.
The document writer raised concerns over water contamination from fracking.
The document says: “Mountain View County does not approve the use of potable water by NAL Energy for frack operations. Eagle Valley does not permit you to frack this location until BTX water testing (Baseline) has been conducted prior to your frack and flare job. All cattle water wells, house tap water needs to be BTX sampled 1st. Without baseline water testing the neighbours surrounding this site you will be sued. Concern is Water Aquifer Contamination - you are liable for any water contamination,” the letter reads. If you frack I will blow up your well and shoot bullets at your crew NAL. You are at RISK. You are placing employees at risk.”
The document writer then wrote: “Request FRACK FLUID LIST faxed to my home. (STOP CANCER)” and it was signed by one of two people listed as the contacts on the form. ... read entire article.

Mom Desperate to Protect Kids from Fracking Effects Will be Sentenced October 22

... 'It must be communicated to the Alberta public that there are legal ways to express concerns'


... Prior to March 15 Mildenstein had made numerous complaints to the ERCB, and had sent letters to the premier, the prime minister and others expressing her concerns

 By Dan Singleton, Sep 18, 2012, Mountain View Gazette
... Kimberly Mildenstein, 40, has pleaded guilty to a charge of uttering a threat. Her sentencing got underway before Judge George Gaschner in Didsbury provincial court on Monday.
On March 15, Mildenstein sent a faxed handwritten letter to the Energy Resources Conservation Board in which she stated: “If you frack I will blow up your well and shoot bullets at your crew NAL (an oil company with operations in the area). You are at risk.”
Included on the fax was the accused’s name and contact number.
... The accused turned herself in to police a short time later after being contacted by Sundre RCMP.
A search of her home found no bombs or bomb-making materials.
... Mildenstein’s defence laywer, S. Allan Low, called on Judge Gaschner to impose a conditional sentence, which if granted would spare the accused a criminal record.
Mildenstein sent the faxed letter after becoming frustrated with oilfield traffic and noise around her property, he said.
Specifically, she believed the heavy truck traffic in the area was putting her children in peril, and that noise from drilling near her home was causing her children to be frightened, particularly when the noise woke them at night, he said.
Prior to March 15 Mildenstein had made numerous complaints to the ERCB, and had sent letters to the premier, the prime minister and others expressing her concerns, he said.
Low called the threatening letters “not something that was thought out”, noting that Mildenstein made no attempt to hide her identity as the writer of the letter.
... Mountain View County councillor Paddy Munro was in attendance at last week’s court session. He said he was there to support Mildenstein.
Judge Gaschner adjourned sentencing to October 22, saying, “The issue I have to deal with is a difficult one.” ... more.











Kimberly Mildenstein Sentenced For Threatening NAL Resources And Its Workers


CP  |  By  Posted:  Updated: 10/23/2012 9:40 pm EDT
RED DEER, Alta. - An Alberta woman who admitted to uttering threats against an oilfield company has been sentenced to a year of probation.
Kimberly Mildenstein pleaded guilty to the charge when she made a court appearance in Didsbury, Alta.
The 40-year-old woman from Sundre, Alta., was charged after the Mounties got word in March of threats being made against NAL Resources and its workers.
Mildenstein was told that if she abides by the conditions of her probation, she will be given a conditional discharge and will not have a criminal record.









Wednesday, July 24, 2013


That lesson is: Never again must answering "yes" to "Are you Italian (or Somali or Pakistani or Iraqi)?" lead to the summary denial of the rights of citizenship in this country. The price to pay for capturing a few potential subversives is just too great. My name is Andrew Frank. I grew up in a small town in the Okanagan valley of British Columbia. My granddad taught me how to fish. My father was a well‐respected lawyer known for his unwavering integrity, and my mother was a favourite kindergarten teacher. Both have always impressed upon me the importance of telling the truth. Today, I am taking the extraordinary step of risking my career, my reputation and my personal friendships, to act as a whistleblower and expose the undemocratic and potentially illegal pressure the Harper government has apparently applied to silence criticsof the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil tanker/pipeline plan. As I have detailed in a sworn affidavit, no less than three senior managers with TidesCanada and ForestEthics (a charitable project of Tides Canada), have informed me, as the Senior Communications Manager for ForestEthics, that Tides Canada CEO, Ross McMillan,was informed by the Prime Minister’s Office, that ForestEthics is considered an “Enemy of the Government of Canada,” and an “Enemy of the people of Canada.”



speak carefully
for they are listening to us
and although we speak for our children
they consider us the enemy

we are the people
and our government
seems to believe
that we are the terrorists

that they must be wary of
and then if this is the case
why don’t they simply arrest all of us?
why don’t they put the entire country in jail?

why don’t they take the mothers
and their children
and put them all in jail
for this is the only way they will silence us

we will never stop the work
of working for change
whether it be in fracking
or in the emissions that poison our children

and so if the government of Alberta
and the federal government of Canada
considers the mothers of the children
to be terrorists

then they should put us in jail
they should tell us we do not have
democracy in Canada anymore
they should tell us this is a police state

where EnCana is in charge of Alberta
and the people are to be poisoned
by their own provincial government
yes, let the government take us

we are not afraid
if they consider Jessica Ernst to be the enemy
and if they consider the landowners in rural Alberta to be the enemy
and if they consider Greenpeace to be the enemy

then I could turn left
or I could turn right
and we are all the enemy
except for the government of Alberta and the government of Canada

and so
why don’t you all
come for the mummies in Alberta?
and for Jessica Ernst? we wait for the RCMP to come round us up


this is after all
the history of Canada
that we have experienced before
who will be the new enemy?

will it be the children in the foster care system?
will it be the homeless men coming to Riverbend in Edmonton?
will it be the China man with the slanted eyes and yellow skin?
will it be the disabled woman in the wheelchair?

who will be the enemy?
or will we each have a chance
to be the enemy?
for today it is the environmental radical

and tomorrow
will it be you?
who will play the jew
on the stage of the Tory play?