|
No legal or scientific reason for B.C. offshore ban says scientific panel Federal government to consider proposal for joint scientific review, public hearings with British Columbia government; if approved, process expected to take up to 18 months Gary Park PNA Canadian Correspondent
Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal has proposed a joint scientific review and public hearings by the Canadian and British Columbia governments, now that an independent panel has argued there is no scientific or legal reason to ban development of British Columbia’s offshore.
When the report — completed in January and finally made public May 1 after long speculation that it actually opposed offshore activities — gave qualified assent to ending a 30-year moratorium, both governments showed an eagerness to move to the next phase.
“We are encouraged by the findings of the panel and support their recommendation to work with the federal government to complete more detailed scientific information,” said British Columbia Energy and Mines Minister Richard Neufeld.
“The potential for safe, scientifically sound exploration has been confirmed. But clearly there is much more work to be done before any decision to allow exploration or development can proceed.” Joint process possible Dhaliwal, the most senior minister from British Columbia in the federal cabinet, said his government was giving “serious consideration” to a British Columbia request for a joint sharing of costs and management of further research.
He promised a response within a few weeks and a source in the government said Dhaliwal plans to take a proposal to cabinet later this month.
If a review process is agreed on, it is expected it would take from one year to 18 months to examine all the questions surrounding an end to the moratorium. British Columbia set the ball rolling by announcing it would give C$2 million to the University of Northern British Columbia for research into the environmental effects of offshore exploration and drilling and to develop a work plan that will include a regional socio-economic analysis of how exploration could be implemented. Moratorium never enacted The authors of the 51-page study commissioned by the British Columbia government said “there is no inherent or fundamental inadequacy of the science and technology, properly applied in an appropriate regulatory framework, to justify retention of the (offshore) moratorium.”
They also questioned the validity of the 1972 moratorium, noted it had never been legally enacted by the governments and existed only as informal policy.
But the three scientists who wrote the report did list 15 recommendations they suggested the British Columbia government impose before allowing exploration.
The basic theme of the recommendations was a current shortage of scientific knowledge and research on some issues, notably those of a marine and environmental nature.
The panel said there is insufficient knowledge of the Queen Charlotte Basin, where the richest offshore oil and gas prize is thought to exist, and said both governments should “take steps to gain significantly higher levels of understanding of the sea bottom and sub-surface conditions of the B.C. offshore in general, with an early and specific focus on the Queen Charlotte Basin and Hecate Strait areas.”
As well, the report pointed to uncertainty over whether the seabed and subsoil under the basin should come under federal or provincial jurisdiction. Consultations called for Among its other suggestions, the panel said:
• The case for or against removal of the moratorium should be evaluated within the broader context of energy policy options, calling for a provincial policy that encourages “more substantial future investments in research and development of sustainable energy systems.”
• A longer-term energy strategy should be developed by British Columbia to give high priority to the least environmentally harmful choices, such as hydrogen and fuel-cell technology, tidal power, solar energy and other energy sources.
• Consultations should take place with a number of groups, including the general public, First Nations, northern coastal communities and a full cost-benefit analysis should assess alternative strategies for uses of the offshore marine ecosystem, including the sustainable economic benefits of fishing and tourism. No exploration in near future Neufeld said he does not foresee any exploration occurring in the “near future” — an opinion shared by the leaseholders in the Queen Charlotte Basin.
Chevron Canada Resources and Petro-Canada agree there are many unresolved issues covering environmental concerns, First Nations land claims and the absence of a clear regulatory framework. For environmentalists, the Living Oceans Society, an alliance of several groups, said that even the C$2 million committed by the British Columbia government to further research is redundant spending.
Jennifer Lash, a spokeswoman for the society, said “there has been a great deal of research to date that shows offshore oil and gas development kills fish and harms the ocean.”
| 