Grassy Mountain exploration: A foregone conclusion

"The AER’s political direction and hence inclination is weighted to development, not protection."

By Lorne Fitch, P. Biol.

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has rendered its decision allowing Northback to proceed with more coal exploration on Grassy Mountain. You might remember Grassy Mountain, the zombie-like coal mine proposal that will not die and the Alberta government who keep it on life support.

To get the good news out of the way first, this is the first time the AER has convened a hearing over a coal exploration application. However, to call this progress, would be like calling the 1940 British army retreat at Dunkirk a victory. Yes, there was a process, which some got to participate in, but given the criteria the AER used for a decision an approval was not a surprise.

That the decision was a foregone conclusion requires only a review of the legislation the AER administers and the act (Responsible Energy Development Act) that provides the mandate for the agency.

My friend, the late Francis Gardner, told an apocryphal story about a cowboy coming out of a bar and finding his friend on his hands and knees under a street light. When asked what he was doing, the reply was, “I’m looking for my truck keys.” “But,” the friend said, “your truck is way over there, why are you searching for your keys here?” The answer was, “Cause the light’s better.” The metaphor is apt for the AER decision since solutions are seen in the light of our own understanding (and mandate).

When your mandate is to “provide for the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources in Alberta,” that is the light and the lens through which you see answers to applications like the coal exploration one. The word “development” is prominent and clouds all other choices.

The rest is just window dressing, not actually considering the effects of an activity on the environment. The AER’s political direction and hence inclination is weighted to development, not protection.

According to the “rules” an activity like coal exploration requires only a “predisturbance site assessment.” This is characterized as a bare-bones minimum for understanding the effects on fish, wildlife, rare plants, riparian areas, wetlands, unstable slopes, water quality, hydrologic changes and a host of other environmental elements, like cumulative effects. Do not, for a second, think of this as an impact assessment— it’s more like a brief windshield tour.

Consultants did a “desk-top” review, searching government data bases for information, but did not talk to anyone who was a content expert. These data bases are a starting point for planning, but fail as a comprehensive source because they are often incomplete, not up to date, and are missing information on overlooked or under-reported species, many of which are species at risk.

Then, only spending a few days in the field, on a very narrow search horizon and seeing no wildlife, no sign, no tracks, and concluding from that the exploration activity would have no impact on wildlife. If you narrow the criteria for assessing impacts to the narrowest perspective, which avoids seeing anything that raises alarm bells, the results aren’t surprising. This is a bar set so low as to vary imperceptibly from ground level.

This was contrary to evidence provided at the AER hearing on issues related to fish and wildlife, but apparently the AER chose not to hear this.

As to the “mitigation” suggested by Northback and accepted by the AER, virtually none of the suggestions have any efficacy supported by monitoring and tend to be untested, unproven, unsuitable, theoretical, and overly optimistic. The AER bought Northback’s mitigation assurances hook, line, and sediment draining into trout waters.

The AER says it is guided by the principle it must act in the best interests of the people of Alberta. If the decision on the coal exploration program is in the “public interest” it must be asked, which public? It doesn’t seem to be the public that cares deeply about landscape integrity, biodiversity, and water quality.

Although Mark Twain wasn’t speaking of how things like coal exploration are regulated his quote fits related to the AER decision: “Man is the Animal that blushes. He is the only one that does it—or has occasion to.” It is embarrassing to have standards set so low and this should make politicians and bureaucrats blush. The minimum used by the AER to render a favourable decision on Northback’s application isn’t good enough!

Lorne Fitch is a Professional Biologist, a retired Fish and Wildlife Biologist and a past Adjunct Professor with the University of Calgary. He is the author of Streams of Consequence and Travels Up the Creek.

---