New environmental review rules anger oilsands critics

Many oilsands projects will not have their potential environmental impacts reviewed by the federal government under updated rules announced today, environmentalists warn.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency released lists Friday outlining changes to the types of resource development and infrastructure projects that will routinely require a federal environmental assessment. The federal review is intended to look at possible environmental impacts under federal jurisdiction, such as impacts on waterways or greenhouse gas emissions.

One concern that environmentalists have with the new rules is they won't require environmental reviews for a growing type of oilsands development.

In-situ oilsands developments — projects where the oil is melted directly out of the ground rather than being mined and then processed later — were not specifically addressed in the previous list of projects requiring federal environmental assessments, said Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaign coordinator and energy policy analyst for the environmental group Greenpeace. And now, they are not included in the new list of projects requiring them.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's announcement lists the types of projects that once required a federal environmental assessment that no longer do, including:

Groundwater extraction facilities.Heavy oil and oilsands processing facilities, pipelines (other than offshore pipelines) and electrical transmission lines that are not regulated by the National Energy Board.Potash mines and other industrial mineral mines (salt, graphite, gypsum, magnesite, limestone, clay, asbestos).Industrial facilities (pulp mills, pulp and paper mills, steel mills, metal smelters, leather tanneries, textile mills and facilities for the manufacture of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pressure-treated wood, particle board, plywood, chemical explosives, lead-acid batteries and respirable mineral fibres).

The government also released a list of projects that did not specifically require a federal environmental assessment before but now do, including:

Diamond mines. Apatite mines.Railway yards; international and interprovincial bridges and tunnels.Bridges that cross the St. Lawrence Seaway.Offshore exploratory wells.Oil sands mine expansions.

The government said the changes were made so that the agency’s work is focused on “major projects” that have the “greatest potential” to generate negative environmental impacts under federal jurisdiction, such as impacts on waterways, and other projects would not be “unduly burdened” with extra work.

A leak at the Primrose Lake oilsands project had released an estimated 1.5 million litres of bitumen into the environment as of the end of September. (Reuters)

The federal government heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including industry and environmental groups, before deciding what would be covered under the new rules.

Stewart said that while the government acknowledged environmental groups’ concerns, it did not make changes based on those concerns.

Most notably, he said Greenpeace is concerned about the lack of routine environmental assessments of in-situ oilsands developments. He noted that this type of project is the source of a huge bitumen leak Northern Alberta. As of the end of September, the leak near Cold Lake had already released 1.5 million litres of bitumen – a mixture of oilsands, heavy crude and water into the environment. The Alberta government has ordered the project operator, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., to drain two-thirds of a lake in an effort to stop the leak.

Stewart said 80 per cent of known oilsands deposits are so deep that they are only accessible with in-situ technology.

"Yesterday, Environment Canada released report which projected that by 2020, this type of oilsands development will be generating more greenhouse gas emissions than all of the Maritime provinces put together today,” he added.

“They’re exempting themselves from environmental oversight over what’s going to be the biggest source of new pollution in the country in coming decades.”

The group that represents oilsands producers said developments will still face provincial environmental reviews.

“The province still has a mandate to do an assessment, so this eliminates two layers of doing the same thing — the provincial government will still do its review and it will be equally as comprehensive,” said Geraldine Anderson from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 

While acknowledging that provincial environmental assessments will still be required for some projects, Stewart calls the permitting process for in-situ oilsands development in Alberta “a rubber stamp.”

In 2012, the federal government announced a major overhaul of the federal environmental assessment program, introducing fixed timelines for major projects and reducing the number of departments and agencies that can do environmental reviews from 40 to just three.

View the original article here

Canada failing to meet 2020 emissions targets

Canada will fail to meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reductions targets under the Copenhagen Accord even with more regulation of the oil and gas sector, according to a new report and internal government analysis obtained by CBC News.

A report released today titled Canada’s Emissions Trends shows projections to 2020 with a significant and growing gap for targets even under variable economic growth and energy resource development scenarios.

With current measures in place, emissions are now projected to be 734 megatonnes – 122 megatonnes higher than Canada’s target of 612 megatonnes under the international treaty signed in 2009, according to the Environment Canada report.

But, the report notes “significant progress” and says emissions would have risen to 862 megatonnes if no action had been taken by consumers, businesses and governments since 2005.

Environment Minister Leona Agglukaq, during question period on Thursday, said the Conservatives – unlike the Liberal government before them – "have reduced emissions." 

Agglukaq also noted the Harper government has introduced coal power regulations and harmonized vehicle emissions regulations with the U.S. Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's department prepared the latest progress report to the UN on the federal government's emissions targets. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

?We're getting results," Agglukaq said.?

Canada’s commitment under the Copenhagen Accord is to cut emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, which is aligned with the U.S.

An internal government analysis shows that while emissions intensity continues to decline and Canada is making progress, there will still be a substantial gap in meeting the target.

NDP MP Linda Duncan, speaking on CBC News Network's Power & Politics on Thursday, criticized the federal government for its lack of action.

"Environment Canada has been issuing the same report for quite some time … They are simply saying the same thing again but the government isn't listening," Duncan said.

An environmental advocacy group decried the report on Thursday saying the Canadian government is dragging its feet when it comes to protecting the environment. 

"The alarming numbers in today’s report demonstrate a failure to be on track to meet our climate goals," said Hannah McKinnon, the national program manager at Environmental Defence Canada. 

McKinnon said the federal government could take action by introducing federal regulation for the oil and gas sectors to see emissions go down. ?

While more federal regulation to oil and gas and emissions intensive and trade-exposed industries would lead to greater reductions, the report concedes this will not be enough for Canada to achieve its target.

Last year’s report also projected a sizable shortfall by 2020, but said upcoming federal policies, in particular oil and gas regulations, along with other provincial measures, would push Canada to meeting its Copenhagen commitments.

This year’s report notes that emissions projections depend on evolving economic and energy variables and are subject to “significant uncertainty.”

"In addition, future developments in technologies, demographics and resource-extraction will alter the future emissions pathway,” it reads.

The federal government has adopted what it calls a “sector-by-sector” approach, and has imposed regulations for transportation and electricity, two of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.

Plans to further reduce emissions include regulation for the oil and gas sector; natural gas electricity generation and “emissions intensive trade exposed industries” including chemicals, fertilizers, aluminum, iron and steel, cement, and pulp and paper.

The report also predicts that if trend lines continue in all the sectors, Canada will only cut a total of three megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

View the original article here

3D printer items seized in U.K. might belong to printer, not gun

Police thought they'd made a major discovery, but they may have jumped the gun.

British officers said Friday they had seized what appeared to be gun components made on a 3D printer — then, hours later, cast doubt on the find after technology experts said photos released by police appeared to be of parts for the printer itself.

The Greater Manchester Police force initially said officers found what appeared to be a plastic magazine and trigger, along with a 3D printer, in a raid targeting criminal gangs.

The force said forensic specialists were examining the parts "to establish if they could construct a genuine device."

Police said that if the gun were viable it would be the first such seizure in Britain.

After some observers pointed out that the images released by police resembled printer parts, the force toned down its language, saying detectives were attempting to "establish exactly what these parts can be used for and whether they pose any threat."

"We need to be absolutely clear that at that this stage, we cannot categorically say we have recovered the component parts for a 3D gun," said Assistant Chief Constable Steve Heywood.

"What we have seized are items that need further forensic testing by national ballistics experts to establish whether they can be used in the construction of a genuine, viable firearm. "

After police released photos of the items like the one above, which they originally said was a 3D printed gun clip, some people expressed doubt that they were gun components, saying instead that they resembled parts of the actual 3D printer. (Greater Manchester Police/Associated Press)

A man was arrested for questioning and then released. He told Britain's Press Association news agency that he owned the premises raided by police — a model shop — and used the 3D printer to make plastic decorations and models. He said the suspected gun magazine was a spool holder and the "trigger" was another printer part.

Earlier this year a Texas company said it had successfully test-fired a handgun created with a 3D printer, and posted blueprints for the weapon online. Such printers can be paired with a home computer to manufacture objects using layers of high-density plastic.

Authorities worry the technology could allow anyone to manufacture guns that would pass unnoticed through metal detectors.

View the original article here