Last week the premiers discussed the feasibility of such a huge project at their annual get-together. And TransCanada Energy confirmed that it has already signed up major producers who want bitumen from the Alberta oilsands delivered to refineries as far afield as New Brunswick and possibly for export.
Meanwhile in Alberta, for the first time regulators have raised alarming red flags about the environmental impact of oilsands expansion and urged the federal and Alberta governments to step up their oversight of these enormous operations.
The strong words of warning came in a decision by a joint federal/provincial panel established to review an application by Shell Canada for expansion of its Jackpine bitumen mining operation about 70 kilometres north of Fort McMurray.
The proposal would increase production by a third to 300,000 barrels a day; tarry oil that needs the increased pipeline capacity that an east-west pipeline would provide if it is to reach refineries.
The joint review panel established by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency gave Shell’s expansion project the green light on the grounds that the economic benefits for Alberta and the rest of Canada outweigh the environmental and social impacts.
But the three panel members who conducted a month of public hearings as well as other investigations into the project were very specific about the damage it would cause.
They found “that the project would likely have significant adverse environmental effects on wetlands, traditional plant potential areas, wetland-reliant species at risk, migratory birds that are wetland-reliant or species at risk, and biodiversity.”
The review panel also concluded that Shell had not proposed effective measures to lessen any of these impacts.
Not content with simply looking at the impacts of Shell’s expansion, the panel also considered the big picture and concluded that the cumulative effects of existing, approved and planned projects would also significantly impact old-growth forest-reliant species at risk, caribou, and the rights and culture of aboriginal peoples in the region.
The 400-page report featured 22 conditions for Shell. One of them calls for conservation offsets — setting aside untouched areas to make up for the significant adverse effects of the Jackpine expansion.
The panel also made 88 recommendations to the Alberta and federal governments that cover everything from ensuring aboriginal participation in oilsands development projects to ensuring toxin-free water.
Recommendation 60, for example, states “that Alberta Health and Wellness and Health Canada complete a regional baseline health study focused on First Nations, Métis and other Aboriginal groups that considers all relevant health factors including environmental exposures and potential exposure pathways such as water, air, and consumption of traditional foods.”
The Shell decision follows on the heels of an AER report that revealed that oilsands operators who were supposed to abide by tailings ponds reduction rules introduced in 2009 missed those legally binding targets — some by wide margins.
None of the operators was penalized but instead they were given extra time to meet reductions that should have been done by now.
The new regulations were introduced a year after 1,600 ducks drowned in the toxic soup of a Syncrude tailings pond, an incident that garnered international attention.
The final decision for the Shell expansion project rests with the Alberta and federal governments. But it’s clear from the panel’s report that they want governments to take more responsibility for these projects and their consequences. As it stands now, regulators are forced to deal with complicated social, environmental, political and constitutional scenarios that should be deliberated in a much larger arena.
This is certainly true when it comes to the proposal for the Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C. And it could be the case if a west-east oil pipeline eventually comes up for approval.
And that’s why politicians need to heed the alarms sounded by aboriginals, environmental groups, and now the regulators if they want an easy passage for a new national oil pipeline.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Gillian Steward
No comments:
Post a Comment