FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PROVINCIAL/FEDERAL JOINT REVIEW PANEL ISSUES FINAL REPORT ON
HORIZON OIL SANDS PROJECT
Calgary, Alberta (January 27, 2004) The Joint Review Panel of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency released today its final report for Canadian Natural Resources Limited's (CNRL's) Horizon Project (EUB Decision 2004-005). The Horizon project includes an oil sands mine, a bitumen extraction plant, a bitumen upgrader, and associated facilities. The proposed project is located 70 kilometres (km) north of Fort McMurray and 30 km north of Fort McKay.
The report contains an EUB decision under the EUB's provincial legislation and the Joint Panel's conclusions and recommendations pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) with respect to the environmental assessment of the project.
With respect to its EUB mandate, the Joint Panel has approved the project with 17 conditions. These conditions relate to mining operations, resource conservation, and tailings management. Conditions generally are requirements in addition to or otherwise expand upon existing regulations and guidelines.
With respect to its CEAA mandate, the Joint Panel has concluded that the project is unlikely to result in significant adverse environmental effects provided that the mitigation measures proposed by CNRL and the recommendations of the Joint Panel are implemented. In addition, the Joint Panel also made recommendations that would, in part, assist the federal and provincial governments to mitigate the environmental effects of the project.
The report follows a public hearing that took place September 15-19, 22-26, and 29, 2003, in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Participants that provided evidence at the hearing included CNRL and other oil sands developers, First Nations, Metis, and local aboriginal groups, local residents, non-government environmental groups, a local medical staff association, and representatives from both provincial and federal regulatory agencies.
While participants raised a number of issues for the Joint Panel to consider, most issues centred on the environmental impacts of the project and the socioeconomic impacts of rapid industrial development.
CNRL undertook certain commitments that are not specifically required by the EUB's regulations. The Joint Panel expects that CNRL will adhere to all commitments it made during the consultation process, in the application, and at the hearing.
-30-
The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board ensures that the discovery, development, and delivery of Alberta's resources take place in a manner that is fair, responsible, and in the public interest.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency administers the federal environmental assessment process, which identifies the environmental effects of proposed projects and measures to address those effects, in support of sustainable development.
This news release, backgrounder, and the Panel's final report (EUB Decision 2004-005) are available on the EUB Web site at www.ercb.ca, and on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's Web site at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca.
For more information, contact:
Brenda Poole Bellows EUB Communications
Tel: (403) 297-7012
brenda.poolebellows@gov.ab.ca
Gordon Harris
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Tel. (819) 953-5045
gordon.harris@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Backgrounder
1. What did Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) apply for
CNRL applied for an oil sands mine, bitumen extraction plant, a bitumen upgrader, and associated facilities. The Horizon project would be located approximately 70 kilometres (km) north of Fort McMurray and 30 km north of Fort McKay.
The project is designed to produce approximately 37 000 cubic metres per day (232 800 barrels a day) of upgraded bitumen product. Construction is scheduled to commence in 2004, initial production in 2007, and full production is expected by 2011. The estimated capital cost of the project is $8 billion.
2. Why was there a Joint Federal/Provincial Review Panel?
CNRL applied to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for approval under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act for the alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. Prior to DFO issuing an authorization, an environmental assessment of the project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) was required.
On June 26, 2003, the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans referred the environmental assessment of the Horizon project to a review panel, pursuant to Section 21(b) of CEAA.
On July 30, 2003, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency announced that it was proposing to establish a joint environmental assessment panel for the Horizon project. Following a 21-day public comment period, The Honourable David Anderson, Minister of the Environment, and Neil McCrank, Q.C., Chairman of the EUB, signed an agreement (Panel Agreement) to establish the Joint Panel.
3. What was the Joint Panel tasked to do?
Under the Joint Panel Agreement, the Joint Panel was charged with fulfilling the review requirements under CEAA and the Energy Resources Conservation Act. With regard to the provincial legislation, the Joint Panel has to determine whether the project is in the public interest by examining the social, economic, and environmental effects of the project.
Under CEAA, the Joint Panel is required to submit to the Minister of the Environment and to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a report providing the Joint Panel's rationale, conclusions, and recommendations relating to the environmental assessment of the project, including any mitigation measures and follow-up programs.
4. What are commitments?
When applicants make commitments to stakeholders, the EUB takes them into account when arriving at its decision. The EUB expects an applicant to fully carry out the commitments (to the extent that those commitments do not conflict with the terms of any approval or licence affecting the project or any law, regulation, or similar requirement the applicant is bound to observe) or advise the Board if, for any reason, it cannot fulfill a commitment. At that time, the EUB can assess whether the circumstances of any failed commitment are sufficient to trigger a review of the licence. Affected parties may also ask the Board to review a licence if commitments made by an applicant remain unfulfilled.
5. What are conditions?
Conditions generally are requirements in addition to or that otherwise expand on existing regulations and guidelines. An applicant must comply with each condition or it is in breach of its approval and subject to enforcement action by the EUB. Enforcement of an approval includes enforcement of the conditions attached to that licence. Sanctions imposed for the breach of conditions may include the suspension of the approval, resulting in the shut-in of a facility.
6. When are recommendations used?
The Joint Review Panel makes recommendations to relevant authorities when compelling evidence is brought forward by interveners regarding an issue that is outside the jurisdiction of the EUB and when the Joint Panel believes that further mitigation measures may be warranted.
7. What conditions are attached to the approval of CNRL's Horizon project?
CNRL must do the following as conditions of approval:
On or before December 31, 2007, submit to the EUB for its review and approval a report on the southwest area lease boundary containing a comprehensive evaluation of the lease boundary geology and reserves, geotechnical conditions, alternative mining scenarios and impacts, and associated costs, in accordance with Section 3.1 of EUB ID 2001-7 (Section 7.1.3).
At least five years prior to mining at the southeast lease boundary but no later than December 31, 2010, submit to the EUB for its review and approval a report on the southeast area lease boundary containing a comprehensive evaluation of the lease boundary geology and reserves, geotechnical conditions, alternative mining scenarios and impacts, and associated costs, in accordance with Section 3.1 of ID 2001-7 (Section 7.1.3).
At least six months prior to the construction of the plant site, submit to the EUB for its review and approval a report documenting efforts that have been taken to optimize the plant site area with respect to the minimization of resource sterilization (Section 7.2.2).
At least six months prior to field preparation, submit to the EUB for its review and approval detailed geotechnical designs for all external overburden disposal areas (Section 7.3.2).
At least five years prior to mining at the final pit wall but no later than December 31, 2016, submit to the EUB for its review and approval a report evaluating the mineable oil sands ore quality and nonrecoverable quantity in the east final pit wall area adjacent to the Athabasca River, and a detailed geotechnical stability evaluation of the final east pit wall location (Section 7.5.2).
Beginning with the September 2004 annual mine plan, submit to the EUB the details of the Shovel-Mobile Ore Preparation Plant testing (Section 7.6.2).
At least six months prior to beginning mine depressurization activities, submit to the EUB for its review and approval a monitoring plan to detect basal aquifer pressure changes at the lease boundary with Deer Creek Energy Limited (DCEL) (Section 7.7.3).
On or before February 28 of each year following start-up of mine depressurization activities, or such other date as the EUB may stipulate, submit to the EUB a report on the results of the basal aquifer monitoring program at the lease boundary with DCEL (Section 7.7.3).
Within one year of project approval, satisfy the EUB on the need, or otherwise, to monitor the effects of depressurization and injection activities along the northern and western boundary of mining activities (Section 7.7.3).
On an annual average basis, limit diluent losses to tailings and the scheme to not more than 4.0 volumes per 1000 volumes of bitumen production, unless it can satisfy the Board that a limit of 4.3 volumes per 1000 volumes of bitumen production is appropriate (Section 8.2.3).
Not discharge any untreated froth treatment tailings to the tailings area (Section 8.2.3).
Every five years commencing February 28, 2010, or such other date as the EUB may stipulate, submit to the EUB a report on the feasibility of coke use and sales potential (Section 9.13).
On or before February 28, 2005, and every year thereafter, or such other date as the EUB may stipulate, submit to the EUB a progress report summarizing
- research and development on solid tailings technologies, and
- modifications to the existing tailings plan to ensure a trafficable landscape, rapid progressive reclamation and to eliminate the need for long-term storage of fluid tailings (Section 10.1.3).
Two years prior to planned start-up, or such other date as the EUB may stipulate, submit to the EUB a report summarizing the engineering design and operating plans for the NST system (Section 10.1.3).
On or before February 28 of every year following start-up, or such other date or frequency as the EUB may stipulate, submit to the EUB a report summarizing for the preceding year the performance of the NST system, including reasons for deviations from design (Section 10.1.3).
Within one year of project approval, satisfy the EUB on the need, or otherwise, to monitor for potential effects of injection activities on the depressurization needs of other developments in the regional study area (Section 12.7).
Include in the project area a minimum setback of 250 m from the edge of the wetted width of the Athabasca River during spring flow, excluding the water intake facility (Section 15.6).
8. What recommendations does the report make to the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada?
The Panel recommends to Canada that
- the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) require CNRL to gather additional hydrologic data and to verify the predictions of its hydrologic model (Section 13.10);
- DFO assess the need to integrate the findings of the Instream Flow Needs (IFN) subgroup of the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) into its authorizations (Section 13.10);
- DFO, in cooperation with Alberta Environment (AENV), establish an IFN for the Athabasca River in the event that CEMA is unable to do so by the end of 2005 (Section 13.10);
- DFO require CNRL to develop and implement a comprehensive surface water quality and sediment quality monitoring program (Section 14.6);
- DFO require CNRL to share monitoring results of its compensation lake with other stakeholders in the region (Section 15.6);
- DFO require CNRL, in consultation with Environment Canada (EC), to develop and implement a comprehensive fish-monitoring program (Section 15.6);
- DFO require CNRL to conduct follow-up studies on potential impacts of fish tainting compounds from the project on relevant fish species (Section 15.6);
- Health Canada (HC), in cooperation with Alberta Health and Wellness (AHW), consider undertaking a regional health study primarily dealing with First Nations, Metis, and other aboriginal people (Section 18.6); and
- EC and DFO review and optimize their financial and human resourcing of CEMA with a view to produce results in an earlier time frame (Section 20.6).
The Panel recommends to Alberta that
- AENV invite all interested stakeholders to participate in the process of assessing the need for a regional groundwater resource characterization initiative (Section 12.7);
- AENV's Dam Safety Branch require CNRL to include updated seepage modelling results, Quaternary deposits mapping, groundwater monitoring plans, and mitigation measures as part of the external tailings area (ETA) detailed design report (Section 12.7);
- AENV consider the involvement of stakeholders, in particular EC, in the design and implementation of CNRL's groundwater monitoring program (Section 12.7);
- AENV require CNRL to gather additional hydrologic data and to verify predictions of its hydrologic model (Section 13.10);
- AENV, in cooperation with DFO, establish an IFN for the Athabasca River in the event that CEMA is unable to do so by the end of 2005 (Section 13.10);
- AENV assess the need to integrate the findings of the IFN subgroup of CEMA into its authorizations (Section 13.10);
- AENV require CNRL to monitor for the effects of acid deposition in regional water bodies (Section 14.6);
- AENV require CNRL to develop and implement a comprehensive surface water quality and sediment quality monitoring program (Section 14.6);
- AENV and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) require CNRL to conduct follow-up studies on potential impacts of fish tainting compounds on relevant fish species (Section 15.6);
- AENV and ASRD require CNRL, in consultation with EC, to develop and implement a comprehensive fish-monitoring program (Section 15.6);
- ASRD and AENV identify wetlands research as a priority for CEMA to address and consider requiring CNRL to develop and initiate a program to facilitate wetlands restoration (Section 16.1.6);
- AENV and ASRD include EC in their discussions with CNRL to determine acceptable monitoring and mitigation requirements for wildlife (Section 16.2.5);
- AENV and ASRD consider setting or developing performance measures for progressive reclamation (Section 16.4.5);
- AENV monitor EPL development and testing (Section 16.5.5);
- AENV limit long-term (quarter-year or annual average) sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions to levels that correspond with 99.2 per cent sulphur recovery at full calendar-day production rates (Section 17.5);
- AHW, in cooperation with HC, consider undertaking a regional health study primarily dealing with First Nations, Metis, and other aboriginal people (Section 18.6);
- AENV and ASRD provide stakeholders with an update on their expectations of Regional Sustainable Development Strategy, its deliverables, and the timing of those deliverables (Section 20.6);
- AENV and ASRD review and optimize their financial and human resourcing of CEMA to produce results in an earlier time frame (Section 20.6); and
- in addition to establishing an IFN for the Athabasca River in cooperation with DFO (Section 13.10), AENV develop and implement environmental management plans and objectives in the event that CEMA is unable to meet its timelines (Section 20.6).
