|
Judge rebukes Alberta for ‘bias’ Issue exclusion of Oil Sands Environmental Coalition from Southern Pacific Resource project hearing based on views of Pembina Gary Park For Petroleum News
The Alberta government sent two top-level cabinet ministers on a swing through 10 European countries earlier in October, at a cost of C$87,500 to taxpayers, in another attempt to head off a European Union vote later this year that would single out the oil sands as more environmentally harmful than conventional oil.
What was once viewed as an obscure issue has taken on a new life form as TransCanada advances its plans to build a pipeline to Saint John, New Brunswick, where the Irving Oil refinery could eventually produce fuels for export to Europe.
International Relations Minister Cal Dallas and Environment Minister Diana McQueen were also left to ponder the timing of their lobbying mission, designed to trumpet government initiatives on environmental monitoring and greenhouse gas reductions.
Damning court ruling Instead they clashed with one of the most damning court rulings ever issued against the provincial government and the oil sands.
Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Richard Marceau said government actions to exclude the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition from a 2012 hearing on a project by Southern Pacific Resource were “tainted” and “biased.”
Looking for a legal precedent in Canada, he went back to a 1959 ruling by a Quebec premier to deny a liquor license to a restaurant owner to “envision a more direct apprehension of bias.”
“This is a black mark for the government of Alberta,” said Simon Dyer, policy director of the Alberta-based Pembina Institute, a research and advocacy organization at the heart of the coalition’s court action.
Marceau said that “pivotal” to his decision was an August 2009 “briefing note” for Alberta Environment to exclude Pembina because it had published negative reports about the oil sands, indicating it was “less inclined to work cooperatively” with the government on industry issues.
He said the bias against Pembina “breached the rules of fundamental justice.”
Dyer said Albertans “have a right to a fair oil sands regulatory process, including the right to be heard and raise concerns.
“At a time when evidence is mounting that cumulative impacts from oil sands are exceeding regional thresholds, it is essential that directly affected stakeholders with credible information get a fair hearing.”
No appeal decision A spokeswoman for McQueen said the government, which has yet to decide whether it will appeal, would reassess who should speak when the second phase Southern Pacific proposal comes before regulators.
But Alberta Premier Alison Redford offered a much blunter view of the ruling, arguing it was her government’s right to make sure the review process for oil sands projects did not get bogged down by interveners who were not directly affected by proposals.
However, Energy Minister Ken Hughes said new legislation provides a “clear opportunity for people ... to make (their) case at the front end of the hearing process.”
Junior producer A junior producer, Southern Pacific produced 4,254 barrels per day in the second quarter from a project designed to reach 12,000 bpd, but it is waiting until volumes and revenues reached a certain level before giving a commercial designation to the operation. Its second phase is being planned to deliver 24,000 bpd.
Joe Anglish, environmental spokesman for the Wildrose Party — the major opposition party in the Alberta legislature — said the government “briefing note” is further proof of government zeal to clamp down on dissent, making it even harder to convince the world that Alberta is serious about reducing pollution in the oil sands.
“The worst thing we have ever done to our oil sands is to go out and create a story about how wonderful we are, but then we don’t practice it.”
That argument didn’t dissuade the Alberta cabinet ministers from attacking the European Union for assigned a greenhouse gas emission value to oil sands-derived bitumen that is different from other fuel sources.
“Even by the EU’s own documentation, 60 percent of all the EU crude oil sources don’t have any lifecycle emissions reporting at all,” Dallas told the Financial Post. “The level of transparency in terms of some of the practices in the originating countries that are producing oil for the European Union is of significant concern to us.”
He estimated that 80 percent of oil exported to the EU comes from countries that use high flaring of natural gas and high venting of gas into the atmosphere, but claimed they do not declare emissions that are likely above the oil sands.
| 