Court action against Kearl gets underway

Court action against Kearl gets underway

Posted 2 years ago

Environmental groups are in federal court today challenging the approvals of Imperial Oil?s Kearl project, saying its significant environmental impacts should have vetoed the project.

Kearl, the third massive oilsands project approved by the former Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) in early 2006, was opposed during public hearings by environmentalists and area aboriginals.

The project is proposed for an area northeast of Fort McKay, about 70 kilometres from Fort McMurray.

Ecojustice lawyer Sean Nixon will be in court on behalf of the Pembina Institute, Sierra Club of Canada, the Toxics Watch Society of Alberta and the Prairie Acid Rain Coalition, arguing the environmental assessment of the open-pit mine project was flawed and that the project should be halted until a proper assessment has been completed.

?In simple terms, we?re arguing that the environmental assessment of the Kearl tar sands project was unlawful,? said Nixon in a statement. ?The project?s approvals were granted based on a flawed joint panel report that relied on unproven measures to address the project?s significant environmental effects on the landscape, on wildlife and on the climate. Our lawsuit aims to ensure that the project at least faces the scrutiny required by law before getting the green light.?

From the federal court in Edmonton this morning, Gordon Wong, Imperial Oil spokesman, defended the Kearl project, saying it is environmentally sound.

?We disagree with the Ecojustice arguments. We respect their right to challenge the report, but we do believe that the joint panel fulfilled all of its obligations with respect to reviewing the company?s proposed project ... and the report they issued was well considered.?

He added ?we do believe that we have an environmental responsible project. We do believe it carefully considered potential environmental impacts and includes measures that mitigate these potential impacts.?

The joint panel Wong referred to was comprised representatives from the EUB and the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. He added 16 days of public hearings were held around the province, including in Fort McMurray in November 2006, during the approval process.

?In our regulatory application, we had ... almost 7,000 pages of information in response to a number of issues that were raised during the hearings,? said Wong.

Ecojustice, formerly the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, filed the lawsuit in Federal Court in March 2007, challenging the federal-provincial joint panel report that concluded the $5 to 8 billion Kearl project is not likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects. Nixon said the report conclusions were largely based on proposed mitigation measures that are undeveloped and unproven.

Expected eventual production, based on a phased development scenario, could average about 300,000 barrels of bitumen a day, with variations above and below this volume. This will likely involve an initial mine development as early as 2010 with design capacity of about 100,000 barrels a day, with two additional phases in 2012 and 2018.

The Kearl project was chosen because it was the ?most flagrant violation of law. As a legal organization, we look for the biggest legal hook and this one was so obvious,? explained Jode Roberts, Ecojustice spokesman, this morning.

The group said the Kearl project will strip mine an area larger than 20,000 football fields of undisturbed boreal forest. In addition, it will accelerate global warming by releasing huge quantities of greenhouse gases -- the equivalent of putting 800,000 passenger vehicles on the road.

One of those speaking out about the original application was the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. The region was not opposed to the project. ?We asked the board to consider slowing down the pace of development; give us a chance to catch up on some of the infrastructure work we need to do,? said Don Reimer, Wood Buffalo spokesman.

?The EUB said ?No thank you.? ?

While the municipality is not participating in the law suit, it will be ?very interested? in monitoring both the proceedings and the outcome.

Reimer didn?t directly comment on speculation the environmental groups were using the Kearl project as an example to challenge the entire environmental assessment process.