The federal government made changes to oil and natural gas export regulations matching what the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers lobbied for.
In its 2012 federal budget, the Conservative government altered the National Energy Board Act to eliminate the mandatory requirement to grant public consultations prior to a license for oil and natural gas exportation.
The changes to the act are the same as those requested by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in a letter addressed to Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver early last March.
Before the changes, the NEB would consider the surplus that existed of either the oil or natural gas, and how much Canada might reasonably be expected to use domestically, before allowing it to be exported. That decision is also based on whether Canada has sufficient reserves. Equally, the public hearing process that exists in the act (and allows for hearings before the board “with respect to the issuance, revocation or suspension of certificates and licenses” for exportation) would include oil and natural gas.
Now, under the new changes, the only thing the NEB must consider is the surplus. Public hearings on oil and gas exportation licenses are no longer mandatory.
The letter, released through an Access to Information request and obtained by iPolitics, requests that the government amend the NEB Act “to clearly identify the surplus issue as the only issue the NEB should consider on a license application.” CAPP also proposed that, “instead of mandatory public hearings on export license application, the process be tailored by the NEB to fit the circumstances.”
This, it concluded, “can be achieved through a very straightforward amendment to the NEB Act.”
In its letter, CAPP cited two instances where export licensing was sought but “no concerns regarding their energy needs were raised by Canadians.” The most recent of these examples was a 20-year exportation license for KM LNG Operating General Partnership to liquefied natural gas from a terminal at Bish Cove, near the Port of Kitimat, B.C., in 2011.
That application, along with another authorizing BC LNG Export Co-operative to export liquefied natural gas also from Kitimat, CAPP said, were both “delayed because the NEB elected to address environmental and First Nations consultation issues that can and should be considered elsewhere in the regulatory process.”
“Exports,” CAPP argued elsewhere in the letter, “have no physical effects.” Rather, it said, “they are a commercial transaction… and have no environmental or First Nations impacts.”
Keith Stewart, the climate and energy campaign co-ordinator for Greenpeace Canada disagrees.
“To say that increasing exports has no physical effect is ridiculous,” Steward told iPolitics Wednesday. “I mean… there are plans in the work to take tar sands output from 2.2 million barrels a day capacity up to 9 million barrels. Canada uses less than 2 million barrels a day, so all of that is for export.”
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told iPolitics Wednesday via email that, “if development cannot proceed safely, then it will not take place. A change in customer does not raise substantial environmental issues whether delivered by new or existing pipelines.”
He also said the amendments to the NEB Act do not mean that fewer Canadians will have a say in potential changes to the environment.
“Our Government’s Responsible Resource Development policy strengthens environmental protection,” Oliver said. “Our plan actually improves aboriginal engagement with over $13 million in new funds for consultations with Aboriginal communities on resource developments.”
In its letter, CAPP pointed to the specific parts of the act it felt should be amended, crossing off the words it deemed unnecessary to sections 118 — criteria for exports — and 24 — public hearings
The NEB Act webpage shows those changes were made as CAPP suggested.
For the Opposition, the changes only further undermine the government’s track record on environmental protection.
“There needs to be, I think, a process… that Canadians can have confidence in,” New Democrat natural resource critic Peter Julian told iPolitics Wednesday. “I don’t think Canadians have confidence in this government given what they’ve done to environmental assessment and given what they’ve done to National Energy Board process.”
While it’s not uncommon for industry to ask government for favourable policy changes, Julian said. However, “what a responsible government does is weigh what the overall impacts are of that,” he said. “This government doesn’t do that.”
Stewart felt similarly about CAPP’s proposals.
“I’m not surprised that they’re asking, but I am actually genuinely surprised that they’re getting it,” Stewart said. “Because what the government is doing is, by giving the oil companies the environmental laws that they want, they’re taking away the social license for them to actually do any of this stuff.”
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Colin Horgan
In its 2012 federal budget, the Conservative government altered the National Energy Board Act to eliminate the mandatory requirement to grant public consultations prior to a license for oil and natural gas exportation.
The changes to the act are the same as those requested by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in a letter addressed to Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver early last March.
Before the changes, the NEB would consider the surplus that existed of either the oil or natural gas, and how much Canada might reasonably be expected to use domestically, before allowing it to be exported. That decision is also based on whether Canada has sufficient reserves. Equally, the public hearing process that exists in the act (and allows for hearings before the board “with respect to the issuance, revocation or suspension of certificates and licenses” for exportation) would include oil and natural gas.
Now, under the new changes, the only thing the NEB must consider is the surplus. Public hearings on oil and gas exportation licenses are no longer mandatory.
The letter, released through an Access to Information request and obtained by iPolitics, requests that the government amend the NEB Act “to clearly identify the surplus issue as the only issue the NEB should consider on a license application.” CAPP also proposed that, “instead of mandatory public hearings on export license application, the process be tailored by the NEB to fit the circumstances.”
This, it concluded, “can be achieved through a very straightforward amendment to the NEB Act.”
In its letter, CAPP cited two instances where export licensing was sought but “no concerns regarding their energy needs were raised by Canadians.” The most recent of these examples was a 20-year exportation license for KM LNG Operating General Partnership to liquefied natural gas from a terminal at Bish Cove, near the Port of Kitimat, B.C., in 2011.
That application, along with another authorizing BC LNG Export Co-operative to export liquefied natural gas also from Kitimat, CAPP said, were both “delayed because the NEB elected to address environmental and First Nations consultation issues that can and should be considered elsewhere in the regulatory process.”
“Exports,” CAPP argued elsewhere in the letter, “have no physical effects.” Rather, it said, “they are a commercial transaction… and have no environmental or First Nations impacts.”
Keith Stewart, the climate and energy campaign co-ordinator for Greenpeace Canada disagrees.
“To say that increasing exports has no physical effect is ridiculous,” Steward told iPolitics Wednesday. “I mean… there are plans in the work to take tar sands output from 2.2 million barrels a day capacity up to 9 million barrels. Canada uses less than 2 million barrels a day, so all of that is for export.”
Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told iPolitics Wednesday via email that, “if development cannot proceed safely, then it will not take place. A change in customer does not raise substantial environmental issues whether delivered by new or existing pipelines.”
He also said the amendments to the NEB Act do not mean that fewer Canadians will have a say in potential changes to the environment.
“Our Government’s Responsible Resource Development policy strengthens environmental protection,” Oliver said. “Our plan actually improves aboriginal engagement with over $13 million in new funds for consultations with Aboriginal communities on resource developments.”
In its letter, CAPP pointed to the specific parts of the act it felt should be amended, crossing off the words it deemed unnecessary to sections 118 — criteria for exports — and 24 — public hearings
The NEB Act webpage shows those changes were made as CAPP suggested.
For the Opposition, the changes only further undermine the government’s track record on environmental protection.
“There needs to be, I think, a process… that Canadians can have confidence in,” New Democrat natural resource critic Peter Julian told iPolitics Wednesday. “I don’t think Canadians have confidence in this government given what they’ve done to environmental assessment and given what they’ve done to National Energy Board process.”
While it’s not uncommon for industry to ask government for favourable policy changes, Julian said. However, “what a responsible government does is weigh what the overall impacts are of that,” he said. “This government doesn’t do that.”
Stewart felt similarly about CAPP’s proposals.
“I’m not surprised that they’re asking, but I am actually genuinely surprised that they’re getting it,” Stewart said. “Because what the government is doing is, by giving the oil companies the environmental laws that they want, they’re taking away the social license for them to actually do any of this stuff.”
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca
Author: Colin Horgan
No comments:
Post a Comment