Can Tougher Safety Measures Allay Pipeline Fears

The recent flooding in Alberta caused 750 barrels of oil sands to spill near Fort McMurray north of Calgary, causing Enbridge Energy to close down major segments of its pipeline system. The leak has also prompted more concerns about the safety of pipelines. British Columbia has already opposed the Northern Gateway Pipeline on the grounds of the company’s inability to address the province’s environmental concerns. As far as the Keystone XL project is concerned, U.S. President Barack Obama has already declared that the “net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.” Indeed the issue of possible oil spills and the impact that this will have on the environment is a deciding factor in Canada’s quest to increase its share to find new markets for its crude.

Just recently, the Harper Government announced a new set of measures to strengthen the country’s pipeline system. The stricter measures include requiring pipeline operators to be financially prepared to respond to incidents to prevent further damage. Major crude oil companies, for instance, need to have a $1 billion financial capability at the minimum to meet these regulations. Fines and penalties that range from $25,000 to $100,000 are also set for violators depending on the infractions. The Harper Government also intends to enforce the principle that the “polluter pays” by putting it into law. Today, this principle is merely implied but not enshrined legally. 

Moreover, the Canadian government also calls on pipeline companies to make their emergency and environmental plans available to the public. They are also required to have a senior officer whose main task is to ensure that the company complies with all the policies. Increased inspections as well as double audits of oil and gas pipelines are also part of the government’s comprehensive plan to enhance the safety of Canada’s pipeline system.

The ultimate question is: Can these measures allay fears of the integrity of Canada’s pipelines which is now suffering a major setback in light of the recent developments? It certainly can. But various conditions have to be met.

For instance, the government must lay out clear safety rules and implementing guidelines to ensure that the companies fully understand what is required of them. It’s equally important to give them sufficient time to prepare for the more stringent policies. Understandably, there will be debates—staunch opposition even—for some of the measures and the government should expect this and be prepared to respond. They should also have the political will to enforce these measures no matter how important the crude player is to the industry.

A balancing act is needed to assure the safety of the public and ensure the protection of the environment while reaping the benefits of revenues and jobs created by the construction and operation of oil pipelines. For now, these safety measures can certainly help curb people’s fears. But ultimately, the Canadian government will be judged on how successfully it will implement these new policies.   

Deep Sea Mining: Balancing the Environmental Costs with Economic Gains

Canada is almost ready to stake its claim on an expansive undersea territory in the frigid Arctic region. After years of mapping and more than a hundred million dollars spent on the project, geologist Jacob Verhoef and his team are already finalizing the report for Canada’s claim for new offshore territory which will have to be submitted to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by the set deadline in December this year. The UNCLOS will be the final arbiter on how much of the Lomonosov Ridge and its 2000 kilometer–long extension, the Alpha Ridge which are vast tracts of unexplored wilderness, can be considered extensions of Canada, the United States, Russia, Denmark, and Norway who are also claiming the territory as their own. 

The seemingly maddening rush to own the deep sea prompts the obvious question: Why? Apparently, it holds treasures that the polar nations can’t ignore. Natural hydrothermal vents apparently contain precious metals and minerals like gold, copper, and zinc which, when mined, will yield substantial revenues for the government who can prove ownership to the UNCLOS. It is also said to be rich in oil deposits—a first guess estimate given in 2008 puts the figure at 90 billion barrels.

A larger territory is an obvious advantage for any country. But mining its vast and rich underwater resources is another matter altogether. For starters, deep sea mining is still in its infancy. While it might be easy in theory to map out a plan to harvest the treasures of the deep, the reality is that little is known about actually working in vast underwater territories with geysers spewing out boiling hot liquid laced with minerals, where pressure is infinitely greater than that found on land, and where temperature shifts can vary wildly without any warning. Extensive and very expensive studies have to be carried out to determine just how feasible and profitable the endeavor may be. 

There’s the environmental aspect to consider, too. The Arctic is considered as the world’s final frontier and explorations undertaken to commercialize this unspoiled wilderness is bound to have an effect not only on the flora and fauna that live there but on the rest of the world’s ecological systems as a whole. That life abounds in these undersea habitats is already known. Of far greater concern is how the processes to extract the metals, minerals, and oil in its depths could alter or worse, endanger these communities and the species that call it home. At present, little is known about these creatures of the deep, the role they play in balancing the world’s delicate ecology, and the potential benefits they can give to mankind. Disrupting this ecology without knowing fully the advantages they bring to us may have irreversible consequences that can be detrimental to the human species as a whole.

Any effort to commercialize Canada’s prospective undersea geology—provided the UNCLOS approves its claim—will have to seriously weigh the environmental costs with any potential gains. That’s granting of course that the challenges of mining the sea can be overcome.

Policy On Removing The 'Canadian Experience' Barrier

Job prospects could improve for foreign-trained engineers seeking
opportunities in Ontario due to a potential policy which would deem Canadian
experience requirements discriminatory.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission issued a new "Policy on removing the
'Canadian experience' barrier" last month which could change the way
employers hire foreign trained engineers in the province. The policy deems
it discriminatory for anyone to apply a strict requirement for "Canadian
experience" when hiring an employee.

The policy applies not just to companies, but also to regulatory bodies such
as professional licensing organizations including the PEO (Professional
Engineers of Ontario). Currently the Professional Engineers of Ontario
requires potential professionals to have four years of experience, one of
which must be obtained in Canada.

This policy will address the long term issue highly-skilled immigrants are
finding as they are unable to gain employment in their field when
immigrating to Canada. Most cannot land a job without Canadian experience
and they can't gain that necessary one year experience without having a job.

Some common screening methods will be considered unacceptable under the
policy  such as asking for local references only, including a requirement
for prior Canadian work experience in the job posting or ad and requiring
applicants to disclose their country of origin or the location of their work
experience on the job application form.

For more information on this Policy please see
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-removing-%E2%80%9Ccanadian-experience%E2%80%

It’s All Systems Go for Pickering Airport

After more than 40 years on the shelf, the Federal Government finally announced the resurrection of the Pickering Airport Project. The proposed international airport is set to serve the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) which is now experiencing rapid population growth. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has revealed that plans to build the airport will begin right away with the project slated to be completed in 2027.

It can be remembered that the Federal Government acquired about 7,500 hectares of farmland in Pickering, Markham and Uxbridge in 1972 with the plan of turning it into an international airport. However, due to strong environmental and community opposition, the project was put on hold. When the Government of Ontario said that it would not build the necessary infrastructure like roads and sewers for the site, the plan was shelved although the Federal Government retained the lands.

With the population in the GTA expected to rise to 8.2 million by 2030, the demand for a new airport has become apparent. Toronto Pearson International Airport will not be able to handle increased commercial air traffic while the Hamilton John C. Munro International Airport is not a feasible alternative because of its distance from the city center. Toronto’s two other airports are also unsuitable. The Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport caters only to propeller planes while the Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport is scheduled to close in 2015.

In the revived plan, the Pickering Airport will occupy one-third of the area. The remaining areas will be used to expand the Rouge National Urban Park while the rest will be allocated for  economic development.