Premier Stelmach’s government has done the right thing by cancelling the lease deal with Oil Sands Underground Mining Corp (OSUM) relating to Marie Lake because it did not serve the public interests. Protecting the public interest is Job #1 of democratically elected governments.
What is equally reassuring about this action by the Stelmach government is comment by the Minister of Energy that “for the first time…he had factored in Albertans’ concerns about the rapid pace of development. YES! That is a major step forward in an effort to have our government deal in a practical way with the need for responsible and sustainable development of our non-renewable natural resources.
OSUM is now reported to be threatening to sue the Stelmach government. Fair enough if they do not get what they are entitled to under the law. That entitlement, according to the Mines and Minerals Act of Alberta, means they get reimbursement for there development, engineering and planning costs.
However, OSUM wants more. They indicate they are intending to sue for opportunity costs for no longer having access to what they claim was a potential of 50,000 barrels a day of oil from an alleged reserve potential of 252 million barrels. Good luck. The legislation empowers the Minister to cancel a lease at his discretion when he is of the opinion that any further exploration or development is not in the public interest.
I truly hope the litigation goes forward because it would clearly establish the priority role of the Crown relating to natural resource management and development. The energy industry is working for the government on behalf of citizens when it gets a license or a lease to exploit our resources. When it proceeds and plans to do its exploitation profitably the industry is working for the benefit of its shareholders, the owners of the companies. Both masters must be served but they are very different masters.
The media reported comment by a well respected Calgary based energy lawyer is helpful and telling as well. He is quoted as saying he was “surprised the government would break a contract under public pressure.” It should come as no surprise that the public common interest concerns would trump an individual enterprise concern. The public interest is almost always paramount and the only protection an individual citizen (not a corporation) has is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As for the potential lawsuit by OSUM for compensation for opportunity costs, the energy lawyer is quoted as saying “If the province has caused damages, as it has in this case, there seems to be a ‘plausible claim.’” Agreed, OSUM should get their out of pocket costs back – not their opportunity costs. Alberta Energy should never have issues that lease under those circumstances in the first place.
I was fascinated by the use of the word “plausible” to describe the OSUM claim for opportunity damages on the Marie Lake lease cancellation. So I went to my Pocket Oxford Dictionary and looked up the definition of plausible. Oxford was it means to be “specious, seeming reasonable or probable; persuasive but deceptive. Pretty much says it all don’t you think?
OSUM is now reported to be threatening to sue the Stelmach government. Fair enough if they do not get what they are entitled to under the law. That entitlement, according to the Mines and Minerals Act of Alberta, means they get reimbursement for there development, engineering and planning costs.
However, OSUM wants more. They indicate they are intending to sue for opportunity costs for no longer having access to what they claim was a potential of 50,000 barrels a day of oil from an alleged reserve potential of 252 million barrels. Good luck. The legislation empowers the Minister to cancel a lease at his discretion when he is of the opinion that any further exploration or development is not in the public interest.
I truly hope the litigation goes forward because it would clearly establish the priority role of the Crown relating to natural resource management and development. The energy industry is working for the government on behalf of citizens when it gets a license or a lease to exploit our resources. When it proceeds and plans to do its exploitation profitably the industry is working for the benefit of its shareholders, the owners of the companies. Both masters must be served but they are very different masters.
The media reported comment by a well respected Calgary based energy lawyer is helpful and telling as well. He is quoted as saying he was “surprised the government would break a contract under public pressure.” It should come as no surprise that the public common interest concerns would trump an individual enterprise concern. The public interest is almost always paramount and the only protection an individual citizen (not a corporation) has is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As for the potential lawsuit by OSUM for compensation for opportunity costs, the energy lawyer is quoted as saying “If the province has caused damages, as it has in this case, there seems to be a ‘plausible claim.’” Agreed, OSUM should get their out of pocket costs back – not their opportunity costs. Alberta Energy should never have issues that lease under those circumstances in the first place.
I was fascinated by the use of the word “plausible” to describe the OSUM claim for opportunity damages on the Marie Lake lease cancellation. So I went to my Pocket Oxford Dictionary and looked up the definition of plausible. Oxford was it means to be “specious, seeming reasonable or probable; persuasive but deceptive. Pretty much says it all don’t you think?
The issue of lawsuits against the
ReplyDeleteProvincial government should be expanded as it is something every director of a public company faces. For example, if a company goes broke, a director may be personally responsible for the financial loss. So it should be for the Government. They are chosing a policy to entice companies to invest in a Project, and then change the rules later on. The legal term for this is "entrapment".
Maybe Ed should think about this issue more than his popularity in the polls.
I do not understand how you are a member of the PC Party with all of your trashing of their policies. Someone who supports Dion should not be a member of the Alberta PC party - maybe we should have a prohibition of LPC members. Expect more blue tories once the next election comes along to revitalize the PC party.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 5:06 - I have been a PC member since the early 70's but I am not a blind adherent to bad policy or bad governance, regardless of the political party.
ReplyDeleteAs a citizen I enjoy my Charter Right of Free Association. You indicate from your comment that you want to take that away from me simply because I have a different point of view than you?
Guys like you would still be burning witches.
Your atitude and value set is not part of the free and democratic society I know to be Canada.
Who do you think you are and while we are asking, who are you anyway? You are afraid to identify yourself but quick to hide behind a curtain of anonymity and bligthly dispose of another citizens' rights. Shame on you!
Your heros must be guys like Castro based on how you would so easily take away another Canadian citizen's rights of association and free speech and do so in such a dictatorial way.
Who made your opinions the law? Who said you decided what was right and what could and couldn't be said!
Shame on me? When you buy a membership, you sign a statement agreeing with a particular set of principles and values. The LPC Constitution is inherently diametric to that of the PC Party. Shame on you!
ReplyDeletePolitical parties can exclude whoever they want - as a lawyer, you should know that.
It is quite simple. You cannot suck and blow at the same time. You either believe one set of principles or you don't.
I helped the Alberta PC Party adopt its Statement of Principles in the early 90's. I participated as a member of the PC Party Policy Committee who conducted the recent review and reaffirmation of the Statement of Principles by the grassroots of the PC Party in Convention at an AGM a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the Statement of Principles of the PC Party of Alberta very strongly. When I see the actions and the policies of my PC government not aligned with those Principles - as was way too often the case in the latter days of Klein's reign - I comment openly and try to change the policy position.
Political parties are like private clubs and churches. They are entitled to discriminate as to membership so long at they do not do so in breach of the law. I could be expelled from the PC Party of Alberta if they chose to do so.
It happens. Paul Martin expelled Quebec branch Liberal members due to frauds they perpetrated in Adscam. Jack Ramsay was a Reform Party MP who was expelled from that party. He was a former RCMP who was found guilty of raping a female abroiginal child while on duty.
My difference of opinion with your view of the world hardly matches these transgressions for expulsion from the PC Party of Alberta.
Just who are you again??? Why are you so secretive? Do I need to be afraid of you?
In a more practical vein, your world must be very simple if you never have had to make a tradeoff between competing principles of equal importance.
In the real world it happens all the time and it takes courage, character and wisdom to do it well.
As for the federal Libs, I supported Dion for the federal Liberal leadership. He was the man who I felt had the best personal human qualities and strength of character for national political leadership in Canada.
I disagree with him on Income Trusts and on Canada to have a continuing military role in Afghanistan, to name a few. I have made that disagreement known to that party and to him too.
That is only my opinion and I do not expect all people to agree with me, nor do I believe that they have to stifle their opinions or forfeit their freedoms because their opinions differ from mine.
You have nothing to be afraid of! I am just getting a little sick of liberals who are in a conservative party in Alberta when there already is a liberal party in alberta. most are in the PC Party merely because it is the only party that ever wins - they are members of convenience.
ReplyDelete