Ramp Metals stock surges on Sprott backing for Saskatchewan project
Ramp compares its project with the eye structure of the Nova-Bollinger nickel-copper mine in Western Australia.
An Alberta judge has overturned a government decision that barred certain environmental groups from an oil sands project hearing, calling Alberta’s actions “tainted” and “biased.”
The case centres around Southern Pacific Resource Corp’s plans to enter Phase two of its McKay project in Northern Alberta.
In 2012, the Director of an Alberta environmental review board rejected Statements of Concern issued by two environmental groups, the Pembina Institute and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association. The government rejected the plaintiffs because, according to the Director, they are not “directly affected” by the project are not a “person.”
After a hearing on September 5, Justice Richard Marceau has quashed the Director’s decision, calling it a “violation of the rules of natural justice.”
According to the ruling, the Director had made “irrelevant considerations” when looking at the parties’ Statement of Concern. These considerations include assessments of whether the groups were “cooperative” and whether they had “published negative media about the oil sands.”
These actions, the judge ruled, rendered the Director’s decision “fatally flawed.” Marceau added that the Pembina Institute had been “targeted” because of its publications.
“It is difficult to envision a more direct apprehension of bias,” the judge wrote.
“We are pleased to see that this error has been corrected,” says Simon Dyer, policy director for the Pembina, in a statement. “Albertans have a right to a fair oilsands regulatory process including the right to be heard and raise concerns about oilsands development.”
8 Comments
canadianwest
Obviously, at least one Albertan with a say, understands that fairness in the process is just as important as discount royalty payments to a confused government.
Doug Hislop
If they don’t want the oil sands to be developed tell all environmentalist to ride a horse,donkey,camel or walk they should not drive a vehicles or any think that
has oil in it
Brad
Aren’t we tired of this straw man argument yet? This is about about +1.3 billion new users. Some think that’s a good thing (cha-ching!), some don’t.
Gary
I think it will be a show of good faith on the environmentalists part not to use anything which is derived from oil, whether it be fuel or plastic bags.. as the old saying goes, don’t complain about farmers with your mouth full
Alan
It would show good faith if backers of dirty oil only had access to oily water and unhealthy smoggy air to breathe.
apple
Unfortunately some of the environmental groups have nothing to add to the discussion other than to shut projects down by using needless and endless red tape and studying and discussing projects to death. This does not make resourse projects cleaner, just more expensive. Close minded to the actual needs and desires of society.
These are needed resources and there is larger opportunity for environmental groups to add to the projects by providing ideas on making projects cleaner and safer. And an opportunity to teach and encourage the wider society to use and consume less. Lower consumption mean fewer mines and lower oil production.
Groundbreaker
I’m all for it. As long as the enviros work WITH industry and not AGAINST. Mining needs to be cleaner going forward – no way around this.
spygoat
Working as an Environmental Advisor for a generator in the region I will say that we are trying our best to mitigate emissions and be as ‘green’ as possible. If we want to drive cars, fly planes etc. we need oil. I will also go on the record and say that all of the plants up here adhere to far stricter environmental guidelines and procedures than any other industry in the province. I don’t see car washes, welding shops, fast food restaurants, and fuel stations in Calgary or Edmonton lining up to implement and install ground water monitoring wells and soil sampling programs to mitigate their impacts.