Astonishing!!!
The Federal Court has just dismissed Imperial Oils bid to quash a previous regulatory decision that cancelled the 100,000 barrels per day Kearl Lake oil sands project. The original project permit rejection was because of an inadequate environmental reporting on air quality implications from greenhouse gas emissions.
The review panel did not take the project’s GHG emissions that are equivalent to 800,000 passenger vehicles as being of any significance. A Judge disagreed and said the review panel made an error of law and sent the matter back to the panel to do its job right.
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans then advised Imperial the project permit was a nullity and they could not proceed with the project. Imperial challenged the federal position and today the lost that challenge.
A corporate spokesman speculates the project may be delayed for up to a year as they comply with the process that is in place.
The Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development and Sierra Club of Canada took the lead on challenging the project approvals and sought to quash them through the courts - and they won! Good job! The courts have made it pretty clear that “…we need a higher standard associated with environmental assessment of oil-sands projects” according to Simon Dyer, Pembina’s director of oil sands.
The world of oil sands development just changed - and for the good again. First 500 ducks die in a tailings pond and the world notices. Now the environmental standards for project approvals are subject to a real rigour and not just an old style and clubby de rigueur standard of care.
Great day for the future of Alberta’s ecological integrity! This decision is a wake-up call for industry and the regulators to be more circumspect in approvals for oil sands development.
Why not just add a carbon tax to solve all of our problems? LOL. Funny you have not written on the one major policy plank of the weak leader of the LPC.
ReplyDeleteAlberta already has a legislated carbon tax. It is based on intensity targets but if corporations miss the targets they get taxed and the funds are used for climate change related government initiatives.
ReplyDeleteWe are the first place in Canada to place a tax on rates of carbon emissions. The big bluster about this was all about the intensity targets but the GAO even said that was in interim measure leading towards absolute emission levels in the future.
Still laughing Anonymous?
There is nothing weak about a leader who would propose a carbon tax in the face of the Harpercons certain distortion of it and fearmongering of gas and heating oil prices skyrocketing under it. A majority of Canadians support a carbon tax - even in Alberta - so it's time to see if Canadians will move beyond expressing support for it in a poll and express support for a political leader who advocates it.
ReplyDeleteI don't see this as a cause for celebration. As I understand it, Fisheries & Oceans is responsible for water use, and there was no problem identified in the original application about that. This was merely an example of motivated groups doing an end-run around a project.
ReplyDeleteThis is a complex set of legal approval relationships and permit approvals and recindings and appeals. The Globe and Mail has a clear story today on how it all fits together.
ReplyDeleteThanks Ken, I will look for the G&M article. But it begs a bigger question. Why should Fisheries & Oceans even have dominion over watersheds that are neither (a) Fisheries or (b) Oceans?
ReplyDeleteI understand that many bodies of water do not exist in provincial isolation - but why should F&O have a say in some bridgework in Okotoks?
Fisheries and Oceans may be the trigger agency for the EIA.... but a few years ago, to streamline the process for business, all the env reviews and concerns were bundled into one BIG process.
ReplyDeleteAs polar ice melts and ocean levels rise... more than the polar bears will feel distressed.... in fact a few pacific island nations are starting actions in international law tribunals as their land mass decreases and their livihoods are threatened.
Dose anyone know what % of the world's population lives at or near sea level? 50%? 60%?... 90%? of the world's major cities within spitting range of sea level?
Instead of thinking of the legal action as an "end run" which in a small "p" political world it may be.... how about seeing it as liability mitigation.
If "we" or in this case our gov'ts on our behalf do not exercise due care they could be incurring a future liability that might need to be paid at a time when we can't afford it.
So while my oil stocks might dip a bit now... it is insurance that we are starting to do the right things right.... that is fine by me.
greengirl
The water permit issue was about draining a muskeg area and the water would no doubt be fed into the regular water system. That means there is a need for approvals and concerns re water for the Imperial oil sands project.
ReplyDeleteWater is a really big eco issue in Alberta and environment is a shared fed/prov jurisdiction.
Not surprising the feds had a role.