Last Thursday, the Alberta Energy Regulator approved a controversial coal exploration project in the environmentally sensitive and beautiful Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains. The open-pit mining proposal by Australian-owned Northback Holdings Corp. was rejected back in 2021 on the grounds its environmental effects on fish and water quality outweighed any potential economic benefits. But the application was revived two years later. At every step of the way, Northback’s application appears to have had the enthusiastic support of Alberta’s United Conservative Party Government despite opposition from farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, and almost everyone living downstream of the mine site, which includes Canadians all the way to Manitoba. Nevertheless, last year it was exempted from the Alberta government’s decision to ban open-pit coal mines on the technical grounds it was an advanced proposal. Thursday’s written decision by the regulator (the enabler?) said the AER had determined the project is in the public interest and pooh-poohed its potential environmental impacts. Northback can now proceed with drilling and diverting water on the site. Professional Biologist Lorne Fitch, a regular contributor of guest posts to this blog, takes a look at the process and finds it embarrassing that Alberta’s standards are set so low. DJC
By Lorne Fitch
The Alberta Energy Regulator has rendered its decision allowing Northback Holdings Corp. 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 is kept on life support by the Alberta government.
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, in which some got to participate, 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 (the Responsible Energy Development Act) that provides the agency’s mandate.
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 its 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 databases for information, but did not talk to anyone who was a content expert. These databases 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.
After that, the consultants spend only a few days in the field, on a very narrow search horizon. They see no wildlife, no sign, no tracks, and from that conclude that the exploration activity would have no impact on wildlife.
In other words, 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 listen.
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.
“Man is the Animal that blushes,” Mark Twain said. “He is the only one that does it – or has occasion to.” He wasn’t talking about how things like coal exploration are regulated, but his observation fits the AER decision like a glove.
It is embarrassing to have standards set so low. 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.