A SUMMARY OF REASONS WE FIND FOR THE DENIAL OF THESE PROJECTS TO PROCEED INCLUDE:

LACK OF ABILITY OF PANEL TO JUDGE THIS ISSUE IN AN UNBIASED MANNER

Before beginning this portion of my argument, I state emphatically that his should in no way be taken as a personal argument, rater it has more to do the broad trends in society, business, academia and government.

The Assessment Panel's lack of real understanding of the issue of chemical sensitivity to natural gas and of its importance to this debate is shared by most of the participants in this assessment. The possibility of this being so runs quite contrary to ideas most have taken for undisputed fact since they first began their education. For chemical sensitivity to natural gas to be a major issue is an irritating and unacceptable anomaly to your collectively held paradigm of how people react to gas and other chemicals. The levels of concentration to which sensitized persons react to gas and the range of reactions simply do not agree with currently popular ideas about how humans function. This strongly brings to mind the work of T.S. Kuhn called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (1962, University of Chicago Press) [See endnotes].

A particulary important historical illustration of this issue is that of the problems with getting medical doctors to accept the necessity of basic hygiene, especially in even washing their hands between patients. Especially significant was the spread of Childbirth Fever, which was solely caused by the doctors themselves spreading disease from people who had come to hospitals because they were sick to women who had come to hospitals who where perfectly healthy, but wished examinations or childbirth there. Older, more influential and more powerful doctors were generally too set in their ways and too certain of their knowledge that they had grown up with to change, although, in this respect, it was horribly wrong. So wrongheaded were the older generation of doctors that they mostly had to retire before the practice of routine, compulsory hygiene such as hand washing could become standard accepted practice.

The set-up of the NEB process and the Assessment Panel itself appears to exhibit many of these characteristics which predisposes them to undervalue or even ignore numerous matters and perspectives we find crucial. This process is clearly blinded and constrained by its paradigm so that it finds itself able to reject proper consideration of ideas that might be anomalies that challenge those paradigms. In this case, this overly constrains this process so that the Board cannot properly evaluate the full consequences of these projects. Thus the process and the assessment are seriously deficient and unacceptable and, for these reasons the Panel should rule that this process cannot properly and fully evaluate the proposals and thus cannot recommend that the projects proceed.

A second perspective to be gained by examining the above historical occurrence is that rigorous hygiene has turned out to be, by far, the most important factor in controlling infectious disease. It is clean air, clean water, and clean food that are most important in stopping the spread of viruses and bacteria. Similarly, it is clean air, clean water and clean food that are the most important factors in limiting and treating asthma, allergy, environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity and related immune deficiency conditions. Similarly to the historical problems with initially getting both medical practitioners and lay people to learn to change the paradigms they grew up with and undertake rigorous hygiene of the sort that controls the spread of infectious diseases, those persons educated during the "better living through chemistry" and "science will solve all of our problems" era often tend to have serious trouble shifting their perspective and paradigms to allow them to fully understand and believe the importance and extent of immune deficiency conditions and their connection to so many materials that "science" has judged safe through means trusted implicitly by so many of that generation. For the same reasons given above, this demonstrates that the current assessment has not been fair and unbiased and thus cannot and will not yield a fair and unbiased answer. Thus, as above, the Panel should rule that this process cannot be held to have truthfully proven the case of the proponents and thus this process cannot recommend that he projects proceed.

Cigarette smoke debates yield yet another example particularly current and powerful. Especially important here is that those who profited from the industry knowingly and deliberately withheld information that would incriminate their product. Furthermore, this was done over many years and under oath, frequently to the highest of courts and even before the US Congress.

NEB should disqualify itself since it has a clear bias in favour of providing "energy" right in its mandate. And it has a clear history of favouring large scale petrochemical projects over sustainable alternatives.
NEB as licensing board for energy projects
Regulatory Capture and NEB

PROCEDURAL:

Clearly speaking for the entire panel, Chair Fournier said words to the effect, "Why don't the provinces look for a compromise position so they do not jeopardize this opportunity for the maritimes to benefit from this gas." It is biased to have the mind-set that the gas is an "opportunity", especially before the entire public process is completed and closed.
It is biased to suggest that these proposals represent an "opportunity."
It biased the process for the panel to suggest what should be done to get approval to the proponents and to the provinces before the hearing process was finished and closed.

HUMAN RIGHTS:

A particulary important event in these proceedings was the near death of Professor Don Grady, from an environmentally related illness. This event was environmentally related illness in that, although Professor Grady is extremely sensitive to changes in blood sugar, the remedy to his immediate problem was only a few feet away, namely his muffin and drink on the table where he was supposed to sit.

Yet Professor Grady was prevented from reaching that table because the isle was too narrow for wheelchair access - contrary to previous arrangement with the Secretariat's office. The isle was too narrow because the chairs occupied at the Secretariats' table were pushed out so far that they made the isle not wheelchair accessible. In addition, the table of the Province of New Brunswick had been pushed out to occupy part of the isle as well. No matter how cramped the space and no matter what the reasons, accessability for the disabled cannot be compromised. But in this case lack of proper care with the environment contributed to Don Grady nearly dying because he couldn't get to his nutrition which was at his rightful space.

The terrible irony of the situation is that this process is an environmental assessment, yet in a room full of people who are representing themselves as experts in this area, this was allowed to happen. The panel itself had a clear view of this, yet allowed it to happen. The panel's staff had a clear view, yet allowed it to happen. The Secretariats office staff had a clear view and let it happen. A room of "experts" filed out past Don Grady, when he had already begun to enter into a near comatose state where he couldn't speak, hold up his head or control his body (he was having body spasms), and didn't even notice this. I am assuming that no one noticed this, because if they did and failed to render assistance that is even far worse.

It this room full of experts is so oblivious to such obvious and immediate effects of the environment they were in, then I, and any reasonable thinking person, can have no confidence in their ability to recognize or properly and timely respond to environmental effects that may be less obvious and immediate. I submit this is evidence that this panel and these assessment officials and these assembly of experts have demonstrated that there is serious doubt that they are not qualified to judge this assessment or even to submit appropriate evidence. For this reason, it is sufficient that the ruling be that no proof of the case of the proponents has been or can be given through these proceedings and that the applications must be denied. I

also submit that Professor Don Grady's ability to participate in this process has been compromised to such an extent that this process can not longer be held valid. His human rights have been violated and he has suffered severe discrimination of a life-threatening manner. Professor Grady's participation in these proceedings was subsequently severely impaired and restricted. Since Professor Grady represents a Coalition of organizations, the rights of those organizations therefore have been violated. This reason alone is sufficient to declare this present process invalid and in need of remedy by a new process. I ask that you uphold the human rights of Professor Don Grady and of CREED and adjourn this assessment at this time.or else to recommend against approval of the project on this basis.

MEDICAL:

ENVIRONMENTAL:

Toxics: It is quite clear that when we look at the cumulative effects possible from the many different sources of potential pollution from the SOEP and the M&NP proposals that the total cumulative effects are likely significant. When one compiles all of the evidence in one spot, it s even more compelling. The proponents have simply not proven their case, quite the contrary, we have become disturbed about these projects in areas where we previously had little knowledge of cause for concern. We have formed the opinion that there is sufficient cause from the evidence to ask that the Panel not accept the SOEP proposals for management of produced waters, drilling muds and cuttings, ballast water and displacement water. Before the panel can accept the proponents as having proven their case, the proponents should produce better management systems for these materials. Therefore we recommend against approval of this project.

Most especially we do not accept the proponents assertions that the dispersion of drilling wastes will not cause harm.

Eagle nest removals and/or relocation - nests attract eagles to return to areas and sites. Can still attract eagles as long as the nest remains. Biologists are not qualified to judge this and can easily be influenced to give an answer that the proponents want.There is not time limit to this ability to attract eagles back. Eagles and eagle nest have spiritual significance to native peoples and no disruption should occur for that reason in addition.

Osprey nest moves are ok, but an equal or better site should always be provided. Move the entire nest and put it on a good platform overlooking the fishing area.

TBT (Tri-Butyl Tin) issue. Bottom Paint that is a hormone disruptor

Off-Shore:

Assuming current patterns of accumulation of hormone disrupting chemicals continue as per tabled work of Theo Colbourn, et al and of Joseph Cummins - whale populations will become much more sensitive and susceptible to even smaller stresses. Therefore their abilities to withstand predicted and unpredicted environmental contaminations from SOEP would be less that predicted by SOEP. This becomes an unacceptable risk from this project. Therefore the project should be rejected.

Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline, Strait Crossing and Liquids Processing Plant - Since Panel has found that it does not regulate these, we ask that the Panel recommend that the NSDOE initiate a full panel environmental assessment before proceeding with and licensing. We also recommend a preliminary process we dub "Beyond Consultation Into Consensus", to invite all stakeholders (allowing all groups and individuals who so define themselves to participate) to help configure any details of these components.

LEGAL:

Joint Agreement appears to be in conflict with Gas Distribution Act.

ECONOMIC:

Deficiency in lack of economic evaluation of impact of natural gas health effects on:

ALTERNATIVES:

PROPONENTS PANELS:

It was only after intense cross examination by AEHA of proponent panels under oath that several toxic substances were revealed to be either definitely or likely to be in the gas. These include, most notably, radon and biocides. To have to engage in this level of inquiry to reveal matters of such concern that were supposed to be fully and voluntarily revealed is unacceptable.

We ask for a Panel condition of release that stipulates full disclosure on a periodic (quarterly perhaps) of all compounds found in the gas supply. This should be filed with Environment Canada and NSDOE and NBDOE as well as delivered to all customers.

OTHER INTERVENTIONS:

Respectfully,
David Wimberly
Co-Manager

Endnotes following were added after presentation of the final agruments to Joint Review Board. These notes are from Thomas. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962, University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London. It had been the intention to read these passages aloud during final arguments at the Public Hearings, but at that time it did not seem opportune to do so. Please consult the actual transcripts to understand why. However, the passages are added here for completeness and elucidation. These notes refer back to the section titled LACK OF ABILITY OF PANEL TO JUDGE THIS ISSUE IN AN UNBIASED MANNER.

Any competent scientist with a rounded education in science will be familiar with the ideas of T. S. Kuhn. The work was seminal and is still widely read. The ability to actually understand it and to put it into practice remains elusive for most people.