It is Time Alberta Ramped Up Tailing Pond Reclamation Requirements

Back in the day Syncrude was one of the top rated corporate citizens in the country and for sure in Alberta. In the days when Eric Newell and Jim Carter were at the helm, Syncrude’s community involvement, imaginative philanthropy and social responsibility performance was exemplary.

Their fostering and nurturing of aboriginal people in hiring and contracting was ground breaking. They have recently received the first reclamation certificate for any oil sands operator. Their environmental leadership was also well known and respected.

Then things seemed to change when Exxon took over the corporate leadership. The focus became more about maximizing profits and pushing growth over an integrated sustainable an responsible approach to development.

Now it seems to many observers that this project is being run mostly out of Houston more than from Fort McMurray. Syncrude is a complex corporate entity with an interesting mix of other corporate owners. I am sure they are all starting to think about what exactly the impact of the recent death of ducks in their toxic tailing ponds means for them as owners and their social license to operate now too.

There were some players in the oil industry who overplayed their hands using intimidation tactics on Ed Stelmach during the public debate on the royalty review. I can’t think of a single threat those players made then that had any real substance or could be tied to the royalty rate increases…which do not even start until January 1, 2009.

The Government of Alberta is the proxy for the citizens of Alberta to ensure our natural resources are developed in a sustainable and responsible manner. The days of the energy industry self-regulation, self-monitoring and voluntary reporting of their environmental performance obligations should be over. Our government needs to step up to the plate and take over inspections and reassert its responsibility to the citizens of Alberta.

The need to ensure high environmental standards and enforced for air, land and water protection is squarely on the Stelmach government’s shoulders. They also need to take steps to ensure biodiversity and wildlife habitat protection has to be added to the GOA’s active engagement in ecological integrity.

Syncrude was required at one time to set aside $100m for reassurance around their reclamation obligations. That was reduced to a line of credit only. Then the annual $1m fee for keeping the $100m line of credit was eliminated along with the line of credit - with a promise that Syncrude’s reclamation efforts would start sooner. Syncrude has done some reclamation and it takes time but one site in 40 years is nothing to brag about in the bigger scheme of things.

Clearly the Alberta government has to demand that tailing pond reclamation for all producers start immediately and that it be done right – not just rapidly. Suncor, for example, has committed to reclaim its first tailing pond by 2010. That is a 136 hectare site that Suncor says will include rebuilding wetlands to encourage the return of wildlife. We need to see more examples like that coming from industry. Perhaps more huge profits being realized from $100 oil need to be invested in reclamation now and not wait for other generations to carry the can.

Government spending $25m on a PR campaign to “protect Alberta’s integrity” will do nothing of the sort and will actually do more harm than good if that is the key message. You can’t buy integrity and respect with advertising and brochures…you have to earn it. Substance over style and performance over posturing will have to be the new standards of behaviour that must become embed in our provincial culture.

Albertans will expect nothing less from their government and the energy corporations who we license to develop our natural resources. The energy industry is only a tenant. They are not the owner of the resource. Albertans own these resources and we have the obligation to insist our government and our tenants act responsibly and not just expediently in how they are developed.

The ecological tipping point has arrived and the citizens of Alberta are coming out of their cynicism and are mad as hell. I think they will become much more informed, aware, engaged and insistent about environmental performance concerns in all aspects of our provincial progress as an energy supplier.

Anyone who want to get re-elected or requires a natural resource lease and a social license to operate those resources had better take this new Alberta attitude to heart. The public is watching and they are not impressed.

Could Dying Ducks in Toxic Tailing Ponds Provide a Watershed for Oil Sands Development?

The demise of up to 500 ducks on the Syncrude tailing ponds may be the crystallizing event that finally brings the public to outrage over the way the oil sands are being developed. The ducks landed on the ponds on Monday but apparently the company did not report it to the government. An anonymous tip was how this came to the attention of government. Not good!

Cambridge Strategies did a Oil Sands Discrete Choice Modeling Survey last November and found that the dominant value drivers for Albertans around responsible and sustainable oil sands development was wildlife habitat, GHGs, water and reclamation. It is potentially the perfect storm for industry and government based on Albertan’s dominant value drivers from our survey.

This situation involves wildlife habitat, reclamation and water issues. That is three of the four top value drivers and oil sands issues that concern Albertans. The story about "ducks dying in a toxic tar sands tailings ponds" has gone viral in the Internet. The story has legs and it activates some core values of Albertans and others about the environment and oil sands development.

These events have the potential to push the industry out of deferring its duty to reclaim the ponds. For government and regulatory authorities, enforcement inertia will turn into urgency and a new focus on more effective environmental enforcement. For ENGOs they have been given a sad but saleable gift to draw even more attention to oil sands issues. They will become more energized to press their narrative about dirty oil and toxic environmental consequences of oil sands development.

There are rising expectation levels by the public on government and industry to be more responsible and accountable than in the past - especially around environmental issues. In the “old days” providing insurance against damages was the norm. When bad things happened somebody got a cheque and that was that. Think Love Canal.

The standards then moved to assurance. The expectation changes toward industry and government required that they show us that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent and mitigate possible damages. And they had to convince us of the appropriateness of the steps being taken. The use of air cannons as scarecrows to keep birds off the tailing ponds is an example of trying to meet this expectation level.

The emerging public expectation standard is becoming one of “ensurance.” Now the public expects planning and procedures to be in place to try and make certain that some things will not happen at all. This is a very rigorous test indeed but as the public perceives that there is insufficient engagement on ecological issues the natural response is to raise the bar of expectation and perhaps legislation.

Yes, I think we may have just seen the crystallizing event that will create the overt shift in the public consciousness to become engaged and more demanding about the consequences of oil sands development. The public’s questions and concerns that could emerge from this value activating event will be very interesting. How the government, industry and ENGO players respond will also be very telling.

If the governments and industry just try to push the PR on us with platitudes and rhetoric they will do more harm than good – for citizens and their own credibility and reputations. If the ENGOs respond by merely raising the rhetoric and the volume of their rant, they will be perceived as only adding to the problem.

If the players just try to fix the blame instead of fixing the problem they will all be convicted in the court of public opinion and they will all be hanged together as a result.

Government enforcement better be quick and convincing. Industry commitment to reclamation better be quick and convincing. ENGOs better present the best information and science they can muster. All parties have to look for ways to collaborate so government and industry can achieve a more integrated approach to sustainable ecological outcomes from development of the oil sands.

The death of these ducks may be the equivalent of the proverbial butterfly of chaos theory that flaps its swings and causes a storm of public opinion to rage in Alberta and elsewhere.

Nice To See Alberta Ministers Musing About New Ideas in Public

Anyone who has read this Blog for any length of time knows that I am a card carrying member of the Alberta PC Party and friend and fan of Dave Hancock, Alberta’s new Minister of Learning.

So with that bias disclosed let me say Hancock has been making some interesting moves in that of portfolio of late. Suggesting that school planning has been “insane” and that perhaps school boards are worthy of more respect and responsibility than they have been in the past decade and maybe ought to have some more political power.

I have to say I am surprised and encouraged by this new openness and policy commentary actually making news coming from Ministers like Hancock, Liepert on health reform and Morton on land use issues. This is kind of political using before matters get to Cabinet good for democracy and key to achieving a re-engaged and informed citizenry.

There seemed to be a message controlling chill over government MLAs and Cabinet Ministers expressing opinions before Stelmach became Premier. For sure, once a Cabinet decision has been take that position is, and should be, gospel for all Ministers. If they don’t like it they can resign from Cabinet. It has happened.

As a citizen I am as interested in what range of options is being considered and how policy issues are being explored before they go behind the closed Cabinet doors for decisions. I want to see want is left on the cutting room floor as these who govern us make the hard choices on our behalf. This new openness is so much more respectful of Albertans.

It is important that our policy makers show that they are informed, engaged and actively exploring options that, in the end, serve the common good. If the politicinas want to earn our respect and gain our trust they need to show citizens that they are not just in a sheep-like acceptance of a top down pre-ordained and dictated “political solution.”

I credit Premier Stelmach for this change in attitude and governing philosophy. The old-style pre-ordained political positioning that is pushed through a public consultation process purely for show is hopefully a thing of the past now too.

Is Alberta Suspending the Poisoning Wolves Just Because it Looks Bad?

The Alberta Government has announced that it “suspended” using its three-year policy of poisoning of wolves. This poison bait scheme was allegedly to control the wolf population and support the sustainability of the caribou populations.

The Canwest story is not all good news. It says” “Provincial officials argue that wolves are the biggest threat to caribou populations and will continue to shoot the predators from helicopters in the Little Smokey caribou range, about 40 kilometres north of Hinton. But, they say, the three-year practice of laying bait laced with strychnine to kill wolves has been put on hold. Killing wolves is part of the province's plan to help the caribou population rebound.” (Emphasis added)

Suspending poisoning wolves is a step in the right direction but the disturbing context around why this “issue” is being handled the way it is seems very short-sighted, shallow and narrow. It seems top me the justification for the suspension is based on issue management more than concerns for species at risk.

The Canwest new story says “…a spokesman for the Sustainable Resource Development, said Minister Ted Morton wants more extensive research done to address ‘public concerns and misconceptions.’ ‘Our objective here is to make sure the minister has all the information he needs and to feel comfortable in dealing with any of the public's concerns about how we manage wildlife….’"

Is our government therefore suspending wolf poisoning mostly because it looks bad? Maybe I am just suffering from misconception. Perhaps I need to be better educated about why we must correct our first mistake of not preserving caribou habitat by making more mistakes. We presume we can control nature by imposing ourselves even more on nature’s balance. That way poisoning wolves is now a justifiable remediation for our first folly. Is that the misconception I am suffering from?

Speaking of “misconceptions,” wolves are a natural predator for caribou populations and therefore a “threat” by definition? They are hardly the “biggest threat” to caribou populations rebounding, as is claimed in the news story. Man deserves that credit don’t you think? Especially given the way we have fragmented the forest and intruded on wildlife habitat in our ever accelerating single-minded quest in pursuit of GDP measured “growth and progress.”

It seems to be we may do less harm by doing fewer and more intelligent habitat interventions in the first place. We should spend more time and resources fixing up the messes we have already made by actively reclaiming old seismic lines, and unnecessary old road to help restore wildlife habitat. Maybe we should also spend more time up front on being more enlightened and sensitive to the impact we have on other species when we tear up their terrain in the name of progress.

Or should we just continue to say “screw it” – and justify killing the bad wolves that we deem are the real culprits endangering the caribou. To every complex and intricate problem there is always a simple answer that is WRONG.

This all reminds me of the children’s song about the old lady who swallowed a fly and then swallowed a spider to catch the fly, then a frog to catch the spider. Do you remember it? It ends with “I guess she’ll die.” When will we ever learn?

Developmental Disability Sector in Alberta Still Waiting for a Solution - The Budget Offered Nada

The Alberta government 2008-09 Budget funding announcement for the developmental disabilities sector is very disappointing. It is way too little and time is running out to fix the human resource problems in the disability services sector. Qualified staff shortages, unfilled vacancies and high turnover rates are largely due to the unconscionably low uncompetitive wage rates that the service agencies have been authorized/allowed to pay.

The natural consequences if such under funding are that vulnerable Albertans with developmental disabilities suffer. There is a high and unacceptable potential for mistakes due to negligence caused by insufficient staff levels and burn out plus more untrained and unqualified staff now are being recruited by necessity.

I have been working with these agencies professionally for about a year months on the funding issues and now on contracting issues. During the election Premier committed to “close the wage gap” between community based not-for-profit agencies and government employees who also provide services to Alberta citizens with developmental disabilities. This recent budget does nothing to close that gap. In fact it makes the gap with government workers even wider.

Here are some facts:

According to a recent independent consultant report the community based agencies pay about 2/3 of the wage levels of equivalent work in the government – and they receive much lower benefits.

To close the gap at the 50 percentile level of government workers would take about $182m – excluding benefits and only for current agency employees, ignoring the need to fill staff vacancies, meet population growth needs and to provide for any benefits costs at all.

Stop gap wage funding (sic) measures have been taken by the GOA in the recent past, a onetime grant of $11m in the Spring of 2007 from Seniors and Community Supports departmental year-end surplus funds – mad available because there were no staff to provide certain programs funds.

There was a one-time $15m grant last November that has apparently now been made part of the new funding base, a good thing.

Of the $30m additional money announced in the April 22 Budget, it is payable to the Persons with Developmental Disability Boards, the appointed government agencies who contract with the community groups to provide services. Only $24m of this total is going to the agencies to provide for front line worker compensation.

The $24m to community based agencies is about 5% but when inflation in Alberta in 2007 was 8.1% according to the Minister of Finance in a fund raising speech I heard her deliver on April 23 and minimum wage is going up at the same time, this funding level is not getting ahead of the human resource recruiting staff retention problem in the disability sector.

The PDD boards are retaining $6m of the additional budget funds, 20% of the total new funding, to cover inflation and their AUPE based staff wage and benefits increases… the same wages and benefits where the Premier has promised to close the gap for the community based agencies.

The September 2007 AUPE /GOA wage settlement was 14.66% over three years (4.9, 4.8 and 4.3%) with a $1500 signing bonus paid to each full time employee and pro-rated with part-time and seasonal employees. There were changes for many job classifications ranging from 7 percent to about 15% in the first year of the agreement.

There was an additional $6,000 - $6,300 northern living and a $12,480 annual living allowance for living in Fort McMurray. There was also an “improved core benefits package effective July 1, 2008 and an “enhanced benefits packages at the employees cost.”

The government “commitment” of additional agency staff compensation funds for next year was also announced at another 5% or $20m more dollars.

The gap is getting wider not smaller notwithstanding the Budget Speech saying “We will also increase funding to agencies contracted by our government to provide care for Albertans, to help
those agencies recruit and retain staff.” It will not happen at these funding levels.

Most of the community based service provider agencies have signed 6 months contracts that end October 1, 2008. They cannot continue to provide adequate service levels if they cannot attract and retain qualified staff. If serious levels of new funding are not forthcoming it leaves few options and it will all come to a head when these current contracts expire.

At the end of the day it is the GOA who is responsible to meet the needs of citizens with developmental disabilities. I hope they have a Plan B ready to meet the needs developmentally disabled Albertans if no additional funding for the sector is their Plan A.