The Energy Resources Conservation Board released its decision on the proposed Minnie Lake area drilling last week after years of consultations, negotiations, surely some frustration on all sides and finally a public hearing in Glendon in March.
The decision could not have been an easy one for the three-man panel, as the Minnie Lake Conservation Society brought forward testimony on air emissions theories and CNRL brought an eight-person panel of thinktank proportions to address its operations and expectations for the project.
Witnesses agreed the bitumen storage tanks have emissions, but how much and whether the maximum possible amount could cause negative health effects came into contention. The panel favoured the air emissions expert provided by CNRL, whose evidence indicated no negative health effects would come from the heated storage tanks the project will employ.
Minnie Lake society did not provide evidence to thwart the fact there is currently no indication the level of predicted emissions have or will cause health problems. CNRL operates many wells in the region and studies by Alberta Environment and others on storage tanks have been unable to conclude otherwise. That doesn’t mean people do not feel emissions can have negative effects, especially on the vulnerable, as one local woman testified she lived downwind from a battery and blamed adverse health effects on its “bitumen barbecue” odours and emissions.
It may be a difficult position the society holds to appeal the decision based on the testimonies provided at the hearing. The panel is unlikely to be proven to have erred in law or to have missed evidence. Unless new evidence can be presented, an appeal through the ERCB or Alberta Court of Appeal is unlikely to succeed. It seems the society’s grievance is perhaps with the regulations themselves and not CNRL or the approved project, and if such is the case, it may be well advised to take its concerns to the provincial government instead.
The hearing showed what’s best about this country and Alberta, a fair process by which contending sides could air disagreements in front of a quasi-judicial body to which they bound themselves by its decision. If democracy is considered an ethical trait, then it’s not inappropriate to call it “ethical oil,” as coined by Canadian author Ezra Levant and now used by political leaders to set aside our oil from countries without democratic rights or environmental regulations. The process was a sign of the greatness of the Western way of doing things, even if not all are impressed by the decision. It’s fitting the decision came only days before Canada Day.
The ERCB panel agreed and sided with the company’s right to recover and produce the oil as it owns the mineral rights, which is the law, and if in disagreement over that right and current resource regulations, the fight is really with the province, not the company.
