Courts Reject Imperial's Kearl Lake Oil Sands Project!

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.

Humans Cause 40% of Wildfires

Highlights From the Legislature:
Tidbits from Hansard:
Monday May 12, 2008

The following question and answer yesterday was interesting considering the human cost of wildfires in Alberta. Worth noting is 40% of wildfires are caused by human activity. The fire that recently threatened Kelowna was caused by a guy throwing a lit cigarette out of his vehicle.

Mr. Xiao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My next question is to the
Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Fire safety is a
concern for the summer months, whether you are at home or on a
vacation in the great Canadian outdoors. With the May long
weekend rapidly approaching, can the minister explain what this
government is doing to minimize the human cost of wildfires in
Alberta that can threaten towns and our communities?

Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that important
question. With the May long weekend approaching – you’re
absolutely right – prevention of wildfires is a high priority. Forty
per cent of all the forest fires in Alberta have a human cause. Our
department, Sustainable Resource Development, has developed a
group of educational materials called FireSmart. They’re available
on our website. They’re for cottages, homes, and also campers.
They’re also on the new respect the land web page that we’ve talked
about before, and also they’ll be handed out by our staff at the
various entrances to parks and campgrounds this long weekend.

Good question! Is the FireSmart education program enough? Is it time to consider a smoking ban while driving through our forests and in our provincial campgrounds and National Parks? With a summer drought, high temperatures and the growing impact of climate change like the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation dry and dead trees are going to be a tinderbox.

Who is Responsible for Land Reclamation in Alberta?

Reclamation is an emerging hot topic in the minds of Albertans according to the Cambridge Strategies Inc Discrete Choice Modeling survey on oil sands development. We have unnecessary seismic lines, old oil and gas and forestry roads, abandoned well sites, pipeline disturbance all over the province that could be reclaimed. We have the open pit oil sands disturbances including tailing ponds and the really big oil sands show is the in-situ development where 70% of future oil sands activity is going to take place.

The question on my mind is if reclamation an afterthought in the consciousness industry and policy makers in Alberta? If so how long can this go on and who is ultimately responsible to pay for reclamation in the end? The old conventional industry game was for reclamation responsibility to be with the original developing oil company. The big guys, who do the really big plays, take on the reclamation responsibility at the front end. As the production diminishes the wells get sold off to juniors and smaller players who further exploit the wells and assume the reclamation duties. As the wells get really inefficient they get sold off to smaller and smaller groups who can use shell companies to pick up the dwindling production wells.

Then these micro players bankrupt the shell companies and leave the reclamation obligations unfulfilled. Not good. As I understand it the reasonability for reclamation can be enforced up the chain of ownership to the original players. If that is the case how often is that enforced by the government? If not, why not?

Another “disturbing” point about reclamation is the requirements to return the lands to a useful purpose akin to the original one would hope. Conventional site reclamations only require the l companies to plant grass…not even replace the trees they took out. In the early days of open pit oil sands mining the operators just stripped off the “overburden” and piled it up. One man’s overburden is another man’s topsoil and trees. Other species with whom we share the overburden lands call them home. How is it possible to replace the topsoil and the surface organic material that will sustain a forest growth if it is all mixed up in a pile? If this is what has happened one has to ask can the legal responsibility of developers to reclaim open pit oil sands mines ever be met with such operational practices?

The regulators have recently changed this and the Shell Albion project has actually for the first time separated the overburden into different piles so there is at least a chance it can be returned in some form so future efforts at reclamation may have a chance of supporting growth.

We better start looking seriously at responsibilities for reclamation now. We can’t wait any longer to get our heads around this problem. I am hoping we see something significant about reclamation in the soon to be released Land Use Framework of the GOA.

Short sighted development that is not integrated and enlightened cannot be the default position of Alberta. Albertans know this and it is time for our government to catch up to this reality and get aggressive about enforcing reclamation obligations.

Alberta Election Reform Should Not Limit Free Speech

The existential anxiety I feel when I agree with Lorne Gunter amuses and alarms me. His column today goes beyond my usual cognitive dissonance. It actually astonishes me because I can’t even find a quibble with what he says - never mind any significant disagreement with him.

The election reform we need to restore citizenship and participation in Alberta’s democratic process is not going to be achieved by putting a limitation on free speech. The contest of how to correct the system so far sees Stelmach’s trial balloon of limiting third party election spending and the Alberta Federation of Labour’s counter punch of demanding big business donation bucks are taken out of politics too.

The story line is there is too much political muscle vested in special interests like labour and business. Those big money guys are the problem. Why? Because they can buy influence via paid advertising in the election process. I don’t buy that. I also don’t buy that political parties should be the only serious players in politics at election time. If any group has too much power over the process it is the political parties, not business and labour.

The problem with our lack of political engagement in our democracy is not about who has and is exercising monetary muscle. It is more about that what is being said at elections. What problems being presented in platforms. What solutions are being offered by the political class. For the most part the content and context of elections are not meaningful to the population.

Political parties try not to lose elections rather than win them. They play super safe by doing pointless polls, run obtuse focus groups, then media train the personality out of the leaders by shrink-wrapping them into a message bubble so they will be politically safe. Elections are supposed to be about choices and consequences. Instead of making election politics about practical purposes and people they become personality contests focused on tactics, gaffes and shallow media events.

There are some changes that need to be made in the election process that deals more with openness and transparency of who exactly is trying to buy influence over me. People who show up and think about the issues and how to cast their vote are not stupid. Those who don’t bother to get informed or to vote effectively abdicate their democratic rights to those who do vote. As a result the no-shows have made a decision that they don’t want to count in the future political direction and decisions that impact their lives. So be it but paid advertising is not likely to change the opinions much less the behaviours of the pathologically disengaged “citizen.”

The solution for that democratic dilemma is not the elimination of third party advertising or abolition of certain financial support sources for elections. I would be trying to expand both elements and also be encouraging individual donations and citizen political participation as a way to get political parties and leaders to become more open to new ideas.

We need more candidates who are able to be bolder, braver and come forward with more engaging and meaningful policy promises. they need to be able to clearly articulate a relevant practical political platforms they intend to keep. I think if there is going to be a focus on election reform, it is not so much about how free speech is being exercised but to ensure we know who exactly is “talking” to us to influence our vote.

The AFL gambit of not disclosing that they were behind the anti-Stelmach TV ads hurt the NDP who could have used the money. It also hurt the Liberals who got caught in a backlash because they were presumed to be the source of the ads and they got blamed because for many Albertans they were seen to be in bad taste and too negative. The irony is, as Gunter points out, that while Stelmach may be trying to limit such ads, he actually benefited significantly from the AFL negative TV ads at the end of the day.

There is some positive, serious and significant election reform going that will not likely get front page headlines because it is not deemed to be newsworthy. It is the recent Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta effort to amend and fix its own leadership selection process. It is one of the most open and democratic processes in the country today but still needs improvement. I suggest this effort is a more important and meaningful step at significant political reform.

The Alberta Liberals and NDP are poised for leadership changes as well. They might we well advised to look at their own party processes and shortcomings before they jump into any exercise or bandwagon to limit free speech masquerading in the guise of enhancing our democracy.

Minister's Biker Girlfriend is Not a Security Risk

Let me get this straight. The Minister of Foreign Affairs (sic) has a girlfriend who was married to a well known and convicted mobster and formerly in a relationship with another who was killed before he got to trial. This is a private matter and “none of our business” and not a security risk according to the Prime Minister.


Our government does not know where 41000 at large deportees are and they presume they left Canada when we rejected them status and because they must be honourable folks.

Now tell me again just who is not a leader?

Politicians who are that naive, lack a modicum of judgment and are self-delusional are not fit to govern.