14 votes

Police cars explode in Canada as fracking protests turn violent

"What started as a peaceful protest by the Mi’kmaq First Nation in Elsipogtog, New Brunswick against a shale gas project has now spun violently out of control. After the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) advanced on the anti-fracking protest, demonstrators clashed with police, chemical agents were deployed and at least half a dozen police vehicles were destroyed by Molotov cocktails."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

99.9% chance agent provocateurs used to create a crisis.

Requests for more money and troops and an excuse to use violence against the non-violent.

Governments must prove themselves innocent to wield authority.

Most can't.

Free includes debt-free!

Yesterday, Sat., 10/19 at the Culver City Global Frackdown, ...

we walked and rode our bikes to a fracking and oil pumping site where there is a windowless plant and a holding tank area where the toxic chemical mix being used to frack the oil out the the earth--which lies beneath a very nice neighborhood--is being used, collected and then dumped, untreated, into the Santa Monica Channel that carries it straight to the Pacific Ocean, unbeknownst to most of the residents who live there! Their health is being compromised and they're unaware of the dangers that hold all their lives at risk. Well, we were there to inform them and change that. We were noisy in a nice way, and for the first time for many, we introduced them to the word "Fracking" by handing out flyers and alerting them to the dangers facing them.

One block away from where the plant and tank containing the poisonous mix of water and chemicals is released is a city park where people were playing baseball and having barbeques--you know, generally having a great time out in good 'ole sunny California. There was a noticeably noxious gassy smell that was drifting from the dump site that made us we want to get away from it as quick as possible before it made us sick that the people in the park didn't seem to notice. I guess, they've gotten used to it and don't pay any attention to it anymore; but we were there to change that.

We made ourselves known with chants like "Hell, no; oil fracking has to go!" accompanied with the sound of the chimes tinkling from the bells on our bikes. Many of the residents who were in their cars honked their horns in support of us as we rode through their neighborhood. We raised the alert about fracking in a very non-violent way and they appreciated it. That's how its done. Violence, I believe, is a way to turn the public off when we really need to be turning them on.

I'm sorry, but

It's clear that you know nothing about frac'ing except what you've seen on an HBO documentary. I appreciate your right to a non-violent protest, and I even appreciate that you are against hydraulic fracturing, a view I disagree with. But please get your facts straight about what frac'ing is and is not. What exactly is a "fracking and oil pumping site where there is a windowless plant". I have been around frac'ing for some time now and I've never seen a frac' location with a plant. Frac' jobs are conducted by mobile crews with mobile horsepower and other mobile equipment. The process is mobile. There are no plants and there are no stationary tanks. All tanks are mobile, the entire process is mobile. Also, oil isn't "fracked out of the earth" a hyrdrocarbon bearing formation is fractured propping the fracture open with sand allowing the previously low permeability zone to produce at a much higher rate delivering hydrocarbons into the wellbore. Finally, I find it beyond ridiculous that any company would dump water into the ocean- especially in California.

I find it ironic to see an anti-frac message on the Daily Paul. Frac'ing is about free markets, private property ownership (mineral rights) and productive industry. Hydraulic fracturing has been widely implemented since the '50s and millions of stages have been performed without a SINGLE instance of aquifer contamination. If someone owns the rights to minerals, they should be able to extract them. If they do it in a manner that pollutes their neighbors habitats they should be subject to the court system.

Frac'ing could end America's dependence on foreign resources. A coalition has been formed, sponsoring anti frac' information in attempt to end America's pipe dream of not relying on foreign oil. This coalition includes money from Qatar and Russia which was used to sponsor Gasland. Please see the movie "Fracknation" for a better idea of what frac'ing is.

Again, I appreciate you exercising your right to protest, but you would do your argument some good if you learned what you were talking about.


Did you

Did you really just say without a SINGLE instance of aquifer contamination??? These people must have amazing lawyers to get away without any of the suits brought against them sticking. Because we've all seen the results. People lighting their water on fire after fracking (oops sorry, frac'ing. Really dude?) companies move in, whole towns without water. Are you serious right now? Ha. I can tell you've got some money in the game or you wouldn't be lying through your teeth. Courts are corrupt, people get bought off, rich people have good lawyers. That's why there has been not a single aquifer contaminated. Because we can't see an instance where the poor have won the fight against goons like YOU!! Trying very hard not to swear at you. Scum.

Show me one...

Way to go ad hominem, dude.

I'm not going to criticize you for not knowing or understanding the technology or procedure. But if you do a little bit of research for yourself, you will find that the anti-frac' movement has large financiers in OPEC and Russia who have vested interest in the US not becoming energy independent. Of course they pluck our heart strings when some farmer lights his water on fire and all REASON flies out the door. There are explanations for that other than frac' fluids traveling miles through impermeable rock.

By the way, I've had this conversation before.







I'm sure you know the truth, but you're probably a plant for one of these companies. Controlling information on this subject.

None of it matters. These discussions are worthless. I'm sorry I called you names, no matter how dirty you are. You're not to be treated badly. I do apologize for that. But I believe you're a liar. Why won't they drink the polluted water? Did you watch Gasland? Just crazy.

You've obviously got it all figured out

You've seen Gasland, so you know everything there is to know. No sense in having a conversation, bringing in science and eliminating emotion. As I've stated before, Gasland explores no science, no technology, but instead uses emotion and conjecture to blame a process for the issues going on. There is a documentary that was made in response to Gasland called Fracknation that debunks Gasland completely. Of course HBO would never air it because it doesn't appeal to their liberal viewer base. You have to go to Mark Cuban's channel AXS TV to see it.

I have a feeling you won't see it, so I'll keep give you an outline... People have been lighting their wells on fire in all of those places LONG before there was O&G activity. It's biogenic methane. The people suing the companies own the land rights but not the minerals. The mineral owners (who sometimes have surface rights too) know that risk comes only from the human element, not from hydraulic fracturing when performed on a well completed well. Also, Josh Fox (Gasland producer) would not adress these issues and it is more than likely his film was funded by a Qatari and Russian group.

Call me a liar, fine. It's clear you are not really a truth seeker, or have at least even tried to venture out of your small box of thinking.

Good Luck, Baptist.

I notice

I notice you didn't address any of the links. That is very telling, I'll watch the film you recommended.

Fracknation will address 2 of the 4.

1. Methane in water is nothing new. There are dozens of towns called "Burning Spring" because biogenic methane has been there long before humans.

2. Yes it uses a lot of water. I admitted that was one of the downsides. A lot of research is being done to be able to use produced and flowed back recycled water.

3. Again, methane in the water. I hope fracknation at least exposes you to the potential in your mind to the idea that what I'm saying may be right.

4. The pavilion, WY is an interesting case. I live jus up the road in Cody. We have a lot of really old wells and IF frac fluids have ended up in a fresh water aquifer, it was from bad casing and no cement. Today's wells, like the ones in ND, MT, TX and PA are completed with much better technology. So my point is any damage done there would be a result of carelessness not breaking into an aquifer from below. That said, this was studied by the EPA and a third party organization and the company was vindicated by both. Take that for what you will, but when I first heard about this case, people were calling it the possibility of the first case of a legit landowner complaint.

Hopefully I've addressed those substantially. Again, if you have any questions about the process, technology etc I'd be happy to attempt to answer them.

And just so you know

I do have a vested interest in it. My entire life and livelihood depends on it- along with hundreds of thousands of other Americans who produce something tangible for a living. I wear steel toe boots to work and come home dirty and I feel good about what I do. If I felt like I was doing something immoral or something wrong I wouldn't do it, period.

My message, as someone who is highly involved in the process, is that it is not a perfect process (uses excessive water, noise pollution, etc), but the risk of contaminating ground water is much higher by spilling it on the ground at surface than it is breaking through rock from below. If you have any questions for a fellow liberty lover I would be happy to give you my honest assessment.

Take it easy, man.

Oh wait

Are you tugging heartstrings now?!?! Oh, thousands of people relying on the destruction of our water supply, wasting the trillions of gallons of water to infuse with chemicals and the contamination. Ridiculous.

Are those accurate numbers?

Where can I find those referenced?


Check the people that sign the check that pay you to troll sites like this to defend fracking.

Come on dude let's be adults.

Let's just have a conversation and quit the name calling and insinuations.


Sure no problem. Gas company spy dude. Ha. Look everyone a gas and oil company plant!!

scawarren's picture

Which company?

Which company?

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain



Violence is no answer.

You do realize that the Corporate warlords and bankers

will never stop their relentless pursuit of controlling resources and feeding their greed. I'm also for peaceful solutions, but how do you propose these people stop the business as usual exploitation for profit of the resources of theirs or any community? Peaceful efforts seem to do nothing to change the hearts and minds of the twisted human beings whose only goal is to bleed the earth for profit. It is not a question of whether this process poisons. It absolutely does and between this method, the nuclear disasters and continued use of weapons around the globe we have managed to turn this beautiful planet into a cesspool. So I ask, how do you propose to change the course of our world? Remember, the founders of this country fought with blood to establish temporarily the freest community the "civilized" world has probably ever had.


Unity under law-We need to understand our constitution

A fully peaceful an lawful revolution is silently defined by the implications of our constiution. One of the greatest barriers is that so many think they know our constitution. No, the have been told they know so they will not use critical thinking in this time of strife to figure it out or accept that someone else has.

A classic example is the response to a thread in the politics and law forum titled "Can one American State the Purpose of Free Speech. About 5 posters could accept it even though it is obvious in the right context.

Here is a method which uses that between soldiers and citizens to defend the constitution from the domestic enemies seeking to compromise vital elements.


Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

How about sit-ins? Peaceful

How about sit-ins? Peaceful resistance? Barter, Bitcoin and cash only trade? If you can't beat 'em, ignore 'em.