Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I'm not really disputing any of this. My point was largely that even if the outcome is wrong, the process needs to be correct, and dismissing these impact assessments as "red tape" is ignorant.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I'm not really disputing any of this. My point was largely that even if the outcome is wrong, the process needs to be correct, and dismissing these impact assessments as "red tape" is ignorant.
|
The issue is that the way the impact assessments are being used as a veto, not to actually evaluate environmental issues.
You can do everything by the book for a pipeline file but it never gets anywhere. You can say this following ramble is a strawman, but I assure you this happens every single time.
The First Nation will bring up an issue - something like a big flood risk that could tear your pipeline out of the ground. It's a legitimate concern, but as with any pipeline you have already done a crapload of geotechnical engineering to show that it's okay. Even in worst case scenarios like the 2013 Calgary floods.
You share your analysis and present it to the FN, and they say "well, what if there was a rainfall that's 3x the 2013 floods?" okay, you go run that case. Pipeline is getting to its limits, but still safe. Bring it back to the FN.
They say - Well how about 10x the 2013 floods? Climate change might make that a possibility! The pipeline fails that case, but you push back saying it's unrealistic, and suddenly it's a CBC article about how the FN's concerns about being ignored.
Finally, you call the chief outside of the process and ask them what is going on - they want you to contract their band's water management company and to build a new fire hall to respond in case of a disaster. Using the band's indigenous knowledge they can mitigate the 10x 2013 flood scenario. You write up an agreement and things are fine.
This is the best case scenario for big projects. You've seen many of the worst cases play out in the media.