Marc Huot — Apr 22, 2010
I had a little bit of U.S.-envy as I read an article describing a delay by our neighbours to the south in leasing land for natural gas production while the greenhouse gas implications of the decision were considered. I was envious because Alberta doesn't follow any such process for oil sands development.
Lands here are leased with no environmental assessment or public input. And that's not working out so well for Albertans. Without any land-use planning, Alberta has leased out 84,000 square kilometres (an area the size of Scotland) to oil sands development. Trying to complete land-use planning after the fact is very challenging. Alberta’s tenure regime limits the government’s ability to effectively manage development because it is not informed by a land-use plan, it includes no credible environmental assessment and it provides no opportunity for public input or comment.
It’s been three years since we highlighted the need for input and review prior to leasing land in our report, Haste Makes Waste: The Need for a New Oil Sands Tenure Regime. Unfortunately, the Government of Alberta has not responded.
Alberta has leased 84,000 square kilometres of land with no environmental assessment. This wouldn't be legal on U.S. federal lands.We identified six key problems with Alberta’s oil sands tenure process:
- A narrow policy objective of maximizing oil sands development and revenue.
- The absence of environmental objectives or a land-use framework to guide tenure decisions.
- A failure to consider environmental impacts when granting oil sands rights.
- Inadequate opportunity for public input into decisions to grant oil sands rights.
- Lack of consideration of the public interest in decisions to grant oil sands rights.
- Incentives and requirements that increase development pressure in the absence of cumulative environmental assessment.
Alberta is giving away rights to the land without questioning what’s going to happen with it.
Compare this to the case I read about this week where oil and gas lease sales covering 370 square kilometres in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota — scheduled for April 13 — were delayed pending environmental reviews on possible greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S. actually requires many steps of environmental review before granting a lease. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, one of the organizations responsible for granting lease applications, is mandated to follow a review process outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That means that decisions on lease sales are made with a better understanding of environmental implications.
While the U.S. approaches its decision to grant oil and gas leases in an informed manner, here in Alberta we’re walking in with our eyes wide shut. It’s the root of many of the current problems in the oil sands.
O-face — May 04, 2010 - 11:36 AM MT
I think Ron Liepert's recent suggestion that non-profits should pay for a more robust bear awareness program speaks volumes about this governments stance on environmental issues. They are quite simply secondary to profit, and really seen as nothing more than a charity case. I guess the same logic applies to land reclamation of oil sands projects: if we want them cleaned up, we have to pay for it ourselves.
Thank you Mr. Sands for allowing oil and gas companies to destroy our future.
JM — Apr 29, 2010 - 01:51 PM MT
I wonder how the environmental assessment approval process went for BP before drilling the now catastrophic offshore platform. Did they assess the potential consequences of an explosion/spill to the scale we are seeing today and the values of the fisheries, wildlife protected shoreline habitats in the event of such an event?
Alberta is setting a dangerous precedent in the tarsands for the Arctic drilling prospects and given the pipeline proposals through NWT and BC, I fear that this constant excuse for economic balance of job creation is a red herring when true costs are incorporated in the ROI for the tax paying citizen. Isn't Alberta in a financial deficit despite massive growth in the oil and gas sector in the province, for instance?...
Stephen McKechnie — May 01, 2010 - 07:17 AM MT
BP provided a 52 page report, as it turns out, they lied. Today "volunteer's needed for clean up." Imagine the wage these Volunteer's could be paid if the top ten salaries from BP were diverted for a month?
Dan — Apr 29, 2010 - 01:45 PM MT
Building on Marc's response to David Sands, the lack of any kind of effective public consultation or environmental assessment prior to a lease being granted actually exposes the Government of Alberta (and Albertan taxpayers) to the risk of having to compensate an oil company if issues with their exploration activities arise. Take, for example, the Government's granting of oil sands leases under Marie Lake to an oil sands company. Once the company's exploration plans became known to local residents, it created a public uproar and stiff opposition. The end result was that the Government canceled the company's lease, and the company threatened to sue the government for billions of dollars in damages. Now, this didn't end up happening - but it is illustrative of the flaws (and financial liabilities that can accrue to taxpayers)of the current approach to oil sands leases. For background on the above example, see http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=30df95c8-c816-4...
Wanda — Apr 27, 2010 - 03:19 PM MT
It is a sad commentary on many Albertans' attitude of complacency, that we consider the fossil fuel economy in the short term. We think we are booming as we let our non-renewable resources be mined out at bargain basement prices - to corporations that aren't even in the province, and where the financial windfall is realized outside of Alberta, and even outside of Canada. How shortsighted are we in our reckless abandonment of environmental concerns?
Steve McKechnie — Apr 24, 2010 - 09:18 AM MT
Where do the people of Alberta fit in? While individuals acting in the public's best intrest create the Contracts with the Developers, shouldn't the people who own and are responsible for the land have access to those Contract's? For example, the exact amount of money that is in trust to guarantee land reclaimation.
Marc Huot — Apr 29, 2010 - 11:53 AM MT
Steve,
You raise a good point about land reclamation security.
When an oil sands mining project is approved, the Government of Alberta collects a security deposit from the operator that is supposed to ensure reclamation costs can be covered if the company goes bankrupt or fails to complete reclamation after mine closure.
As discussed in our report “Fact or Fiction” (http://www.oilsandswatch.org/pub/1639 pages 43 to 46), the problem is, there is limited public information around reclamation costs and the details on how the deposit amounts are calculated and what reclamation activities are included are not made public.
In 2009, the Environmental Protection Security Fund held $820 million for oil sands mines (http://environment.alberta.ca/01875.html). Given a total mine land disturbance area of 60,000 hectares (600km2) in 2009, the security fund works out to an average of only about $13,700 per hectare. While very little is known publicly about reclamation costs, “Fact or Fiction” mentions that Syncrude spent over $114,000 per hectare to on their reclamation efforts and that some estimates suggest it could cost $200,000 per hectare for revegetation alone. If any of these numbers are close to what it might end up costing, then the Alberta government is collecting far too little and you and I, as Albertans, could be on the hook for a clean up bill in the billions.
Marc
Stephen McKechnie — May 01, 2010 - 07:27 AM MT
Thank you Marc. To bad the facts don't have to be posted at Gas pumps, like warnings on a Cigarette package. I used to be a third generation Albertan, but trying to go fishing in a "developed" area made me sick. I moved to Saskatchewan. Not knowing how nice things used to be helps a bit.
Government of Alberta — Apr 22, 2010 - 05:00 PM MT
No development can take place on the lease until after the environmental impact assessment is done. No assessment, no development.
- David Sands, Government of Alberta
Marc Huot — Apr 23, 2010 - 03:04 PM MT
Hello David,
Thank you for your response.
Unfortunately, your statement is not accurate. As described in detail in our Report ‘Haste Makes Waste’ (pages 21 to 27), once a lease is purchased, oil sands companies are required to conduct substantial on site exploration including cutting of geophysical seismic lines and drilling of exploration wells. This results in significant land fragmentation and disturbance prior to any environmental assessment being conducted. So, for example, the leasing process is contributing to continued loss of habitat for threatened woodland caribou. This exploration is completed before the environmental assessment and before the project is approved. In fact, as this disturbance occurs before the environmental assessment, it is not even considered during the application process.
Additionally, in Alberta we have never seen an oil sands project turned down at the application stage. For this reason, prior to granting of leases is really the only viable opportunity to consider whether a project should or should not be developed. From this perspective, it would make much more sense to incorporate the environmental assessment and public involvement in these earlier stages prior to companies sinking millions of dollars into exploration and project planning.
-Marc
Post new comment