(Ottawa) Having now heard the Bay du Nord arguments, a Federal Court judge could rule on whether oil and gas projects should be assessed for environmental impacts related to the shipment and end use of their products, more than those resulting from production.
Judge Russel Zinn said there was so much evidence presented in the case that it would take him some time to come to a decision.
Environmental groups and eight Mi’kmaq communities in New Brunswick on Thursday asked the Federal Court to overturn Ottawa’s approval of the Bay du Nord offshore oil project in Newfoundland and Labrador. They plead that the Liberal government did not base itself on the appropriate environmental impact studies.
Equinor, the Norwegian company behind the Bay du Nord project, has yet to confirm whether it is still going ahead. If development goes ahead, the facility could produce at least 300 million barrels of oil, and possibly about three times that much, over a 20 to 30 year period.
Federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault approved the project last April following an Impact Assessment Agency review and an environmental assessment.
Equinor’s Canadian lawyer argued Thursday that the company cannot be held responsible for things beyond its control, including because the company does not yet know where the oil will be shipped or how it will be used.
“Equinor has no idea what the shipping routes will be because they have not been selected. She doesn’t know where the oil is going,” argued Sean Sutherland, a Calgary lawyer.
He said it would be impossible to assess the emissions produced when using the oil, generally referred to as “downstream” emissions, as Equinor does not know who the buyers will be.
“We don’t know what the downstream uses will be,” Sutherland said.
Full assessment required
However, two Ecojustice lawyers have argued that an environmental assessment of a fossil fuel project must consider the full environmental impact, from soil extraction to use.
In this case, neither Mr. Guilbeault nor the Impact Assessment Agency even considered whether the downstream emissions were harmful to the environment, lawyer Anna McIntosh argued.
“But for the project, there would be no downstream emissions, so it’s impossible to say that the downstream emissions are not an environmental effect of the project,” Ms.me McIntosh.
She also argued that the project does not align with Canada’s or other countries’ interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming.
Minister Guilbeault, a former environmental activist who opposed new fossil fuel projects, described the decision to approve Bay du Nord as one of the most difficult of his life.
Ottawa fights back
However, the government insists that this project is in line with its climate objectives, in part because there are uses for oil that are not related to energy.
Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has indicated that by 2050 oil demand will be almost entirely for non-combustion activities, including solvents, lubricants and petrochemicals.
Federal approval of the project is being challenged in court by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation, Équiterre and Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn, which was the official consultant to eight Mi’kmaq communities in New Brunswick.
Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn also argues that the government failed in its duty to consult on the impact of shipping in the waters of the North Atlantic Ocean that lie within its traditional territory.
Government lawyer Dayna Anderson said the government considered shipping and fully discharged any duty to consult with respect to the project itself. She clarified that there is no land claim or treaty on the specific area where the project will be located.
Environmental groups and Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn are asking the court to overturn the federal authorization and ask the government and the Impact Assessment Agency to include downstream emissions and all maritime navigation in their assessments.