Discussion Paper Title:
Potential Socieconomic Effects of Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in Nova Scotia Communities
1) How useful was this Discussion Paper to you? Please select.
Somewhat Useful Very Useful Not at all Useful
2) How easy was this Discussion Paper to read and understand? Please select.
Very Easy Somewhat Easy Not at all Easy
3) To what extent do you agree with the accuracy of the Discussion Paper? Please select.
All of it Most of it Some of it Not much of it None of it
4) Are there any topics that were omitted that you would like to see included in future versions?
Please list.
1.
The paper does not address the negative impacts listed in the Table p 16, and then proceeds to ignore them as if they are not very serious. The impacts listed include

Actual benefits are often less than anticipated;
 increased public spending on roads;
 drives prices up leaving some people unable to afford their homes, increases homelessness;
 can increase stress;
 changes people’s patterns of interactions;
 decreases community cohesion;
 change character of community;
 increase in social problems (substance abuse, crime, etc.);
 decrease quality of life;
 decrease in mental and physical health;
 lower standard of living for some;
 strains community services and organizations;
 traffic; noise;
 air pollution;
 road damage”
These are horrendous risks! For small communities, they are totally unacceptable!
Why would we risk, for example our mental and physical health, our quality of life for few, if any, benefits!!!! The body of the paper needs to acknowledge the severity of the risks listed and the

socio-economic and human devastation they suggest. The conclusion recommending further monitoring and research if fracking is to go ahead is TOTALLY INADEQUATE for the risks listed!
2.
The paper suggests that the boom and bust cycle since the 1980s may have more positive impacts (none listed) and further suggests that the problems may be over-represented in current fracking literature. This is the opposite conclusion of many academics and journalists who suggest that the problems are increasingly under-represented because of the non-disclosure clauses or “gag orders” that accompany almost all industry settlements of problems. See, for example, “Drillers silence fracking claims with sealed settlements” www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/drillers-silence-fracking-claims-with-sealedsettlements.html
“Fracking Communities: How Fracking Industry keeps its Secrets” http://truthout.org/news/item/9004-silencing-communities-how-the-fracking-industry-keeps-its-secrets
To be objective, the author should acknowledge that fracking problems may well be underreported at the present time rather than her unsubstantiated claim that they are overreported!
3.
The Brasier et al. community anticipation and response stages included on page 7 are almost laughingly irrelevant in Nova Scotia and should be replaced. The stages of
“enthusiasm, uncertainty, panic and adaptation” obviously don’t apply! Instead, a model which begins with communities aware of the actual potential risks (risks, the author lists on her Table, p 16) would be more relevant. This might help her understand why 53% of Nova
Scotians oppose fracking, even with suitable environmental regulations.
5) Are there any questions that you would like to see addressed? Please list.
How can Nova Scotian communities pursue a different form of low-carbon “development” which builds on our present strengths and assets and doesn’t put our communities at severe risk. The paper could include a much greater acknowledgement of the negative risks listed, resulting in conclusions which don’t trivialize these impacts (ie. Further monitoring and research is NOT adequate if your mental and physical health, quality of life, cohesion of community are actually threatened!)
6) Would you like to receive updates about the Hydraulic Fracturing review and notices about the release of future papers? Please select: Yes No
Name: Wilf Bean Email: wilfbean@gmail.com
Thank you!