LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

'Dirty oil' is an epithet thrown around by environmentalists when referring to Alberta's oil sands.

Whether the moniker is fair or accurate is debatable.

But there is a more conventional oil and gas industry cleanup required in the province.  The Supreme Court of Canada recently supplied a new broom to help, but it will take political and industrial will, money and elbow grease to actually sweep away the sad legacy of orphan and abandoned wells in the province.

The Supreme Court decision at the end of January overturned earlier Alberta court decisions which allowed creditors to proceed with claims on bankrupt resource companies before money would be expended on the cleanup of the oil and gas wells.

The top court ruled that insolvency doesn't allow a company to walk away from its environmental responsibilities.

"Bankruptcy is not a licence to ignore rules, and insolvency professionals are bound by and must comply with valid provincial laws during bankruptcy," wrote Chief Justice Richard Wagner.

Orphan wells, abandoned oil and gas wells with no owner, are becoming an increasing liability for the province and the industry.  The neglected wells can pose an environmental hazard to surface and groundwater and soil.  If they're leaking there is also a safety hazard related to explosions and toxic gas.

Orphan well numbers have increased from less than 200 five years ago to more than 3,000. 

Oil and gas companies pay into an Orphan Well Association fund to help pay for cleaning up and reclaiming derelict sites around the province.  But it's not an easy or cheap process.  The pump and other equipment has to be removed, the well bore filled with cement and properly capped and the site reclaimed to its original state.

Orphan wells are only the tip of the ice berg of the overall issue of inactive wells in the province.  Companies can sit on inactive wells for years or sell and buy them in hopes of gas or oil prices going high enough to make marginal assets worth another look.  And abandoned wells, which will never come back into play, may be plugged by their corporate owner but not fully reclaimed.  A Globe and Mail investigation last year found tens of thousands of these abandoned wells languishing on the prairies.

Getting abandoned and orphaned wells reclaimed is a huge irritation for rural landowners faced with dealing with the sites for years and sometimes decades.

Alberta Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd told reporters last week that the province is working on regulations but she wouldn't put a specific date on when those rules might appear.

"We are looking at hard targets and timelines for abandoning and closing the wells.  There will be more to come on those timelines.  This is a very big issue.  We're taking the time.  We're working with industry to come up with the rules that are going to work for everyone.  We need to have tight timelines…in the past we've made it easier to just pay rent rather than cleanup."

The oil industry has welcomed the Supreme Court decision.  Responsible, established players in the oil patch don't want to foot the cost of cleaning up after irresponsible fly-by-nighters.  The Orphan Wells Association collects about $60 million from industry players in a year.

But the court decision only addresses a small sliver of the overall blight of abandoned wells.

In 2017 the C.D. Howe Institute estimated 155,000 of the 450,000 wells in the province "are no longer producing but not yet fully remediated."

The Institute's authors stopped short of recommending strict timelines but recommended drillers be required to post a bond covering a portion of the ultimate liability of cleanup and once the well is deemed inactive carry insurance to cover the final cost.

Alberta politicians are quick to defend the oil patch as being more environmentally sensitive than competing oil jurisdictions.  But orphaned and abandoned wells are at the very core of the issue of whether the industry can reliably clean up after itself.

Will government follow through the logic of the Supreme Court decision with the necessary regulation?

The chances are slim that the NDP can actually put in place timelines or stiffer requirements for companies to deal quickly with their abandoned wells before a spring election.

And will the United Conservative Party, already beating the campaign promise of deregulation, be willing to act on the file if it wins?

The problem is as clear as a prairie blue sky over rolling farmland.  It's just a matter of all the players taking their cleanup responsibilities seriously.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Michelle Rempel has been back at it recent.  "It," in this case, means tweeting a bunch about immigration policy.

The Conservative immigration critic was upset that a press release she put out was challenged, and went on to lay out a series of, as she labelled them, facts.  Basically: the government's decision not to do some sort of crackdown at the border and allow people to continue claiming refugee status between border crossings is jamming up the immigration system and forcing delays elsewhere in the system.

"Trudeau allocated another $110M+ today to process, house and pay the social welfare payments for illegal border crossers….How many more parents and grandparents could have been processed using these resources?" Rempel tweeted.

The "illegal border crossers" she refers to are people crossing between border checkpoints.  They are crossing there, instead of at a normal crossing, because of the way the "Safe Third Country Agreement" (STCA) is structured.  Because Canada has designated the U.S. as safe, individuals claiming refugee status who are coming from the States are turned around.  Except if they cross the border between checkpoints.  It's a loophole of sorts meant to discourage people from claiming refugee status if they've already landed in the U.S.

Of course, resting our policy on the STCA requires us to look away from what's going on beyond our southern border at the moment.  The U.S. government is trying through various means to limit as much as possible any immigration, legal or otherwise.

There are two types of refugees as the Canadian government defines them.  Convention refugees: "They are not able to return [to their home country] because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on: race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a social group, such as women or people of a particular sexual orientation."  And people in need of protection: "A person in need of protection is a person in Canada who cannot return to their home country safely.  This is because if they return, they would be subject to [the] danger of torture, risk to their life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

Statistics from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, show that about half of the claims of people who have crossed between checkpoints the board has ruled on have been accepted.  That's some 3,100 people who have been admitted to the country.  There are another 28,314 claims the IRB still has to process.  How many of those will be accepted as refugees?  How many people are fleeing some country for their lives

This is the problem of the Conservative approach.  They talk about trust in the system and the integrity of the border, but they never talk about the people who are escaping god knows what horrors finding a home here.

Those 3,100 who have been are people fleeing danger and persecution and all sorts else.  They exist, and now their lives are going to be better off.

And the thing is, the government is deporting those that are rejected, in the vain attempt that this sort of measure will be taken in anything approaching good faith by their opponents.  It's the typical sop of a government that wants to be progressive but not, you know, too progressive, in the hopes they can have a bit of both worlds*.

But that's not enough for the Tories.  What Rempel wants is to turn those people away because they are jumping some kind of imagined line up.

It is a shame that people's grandparents aren't able.  But to suggest that we should sacrifice people who need our help for those grandparents?

That's, in a word, awful.  It's an awful way to treat people, and it's an awful way to try and win an election.

What the Conservatives are proposing — in as far as they're proposing anything — is to make Canada a place that turns its back on the world's most vulnerable.  It is a a vision for a smaller, harder country.  A place that isn't a beacon for anything.  Just a northern outpost not of opportunity but of grim adherence to standing in line.

What Rempel has put a fine point on, without maybe meaning to, is that Conservative Party vision for immigration has nothing to do with what is good.  There's no moral core there.  Unless of course I'm misremembering, and the first commandment is Thou Shall Not Butt In.

***

*See: Pipelines, buying of.

Photo Credit: Macleans

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.