Caribou range planning was on the docket at the May 28 regular council meeting

 

During the Monday, May 28 regular council meeting at the Forest Interpretive Centre council heard from Chris Montgomery of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) on Caribou Range Planning in Alberta. As the manager of Exploration and Production Engagement, he had a lot of information to provide. “As our name suggests, we represent Canada’s oil and natural gas producers. We have about 70 members and they produce about 80 per cent of Canada’s oil and natural gas.”

To start things off, Montgomery talked about the socio-economic impacts from the view of the CAPP in relation to caribou range planning and the issues currently affecting the region. “Underneath the land of the 15 caribou ranges in Alberta we estimate there is 1.5 trillion dollars worth of oil and natural gas. That’s from the oil sands but also other parts of the province. With the status quo today which is that we have a moratorium on new leases for under caribou herd territory, we have policy and regulatory uncertainty and the inability of companies to get certain permits.”

CAPP estimates that, as of today, that is causing the Province of Alberta 4.5 billion dollars with GDP and 13,000 lost jobs. “The worst-case scenario, of course, is that there is no action and that the Federal government determines, down the road, that we need an emergency protection order which would have much more severe economic consequences than we are facing today.” Montgomery said that CAPP’s view is that if the province was to adopt the industry’s proposed solutions the oil and gas sector could add 2.9 billion dollars to the GDP and more than 10,000 jobs to Alberta’s economy.

“We recognize that there are scientific gaps in our knowledge today and some of the policies and guidance that is set, and we would ask the government for research to review and validate some of that.” As an example, Montgomery said they would like research to prove that the 500-metre buffer is necessary within the calculation of disturbance. They would also like research to validate whether 65 per cent intactness is the appropriate goal for caribou recovery.

“We also recognize that we can’t wait for those scientific gaps to be filled and that we do need action in the more immediate future. Industry has been contributing to the science and advancing innovations to reduce our impact on the land including in caribou ranges.” His examples of that included the fact that seismic lines today are cut much narrower than in the past and that they are not cut in a straight line and that the use of multi-well pads has dramatically reduced the footprint of companies on the landscape. “As an industry, we have contributed actively to advancements in science behind reclamation and have deployed dollars to reclaim old seismic lines.” Montgomery said that given some of the uncertainty being faced today, there’s a disincentive for companies undertaking some of that restoration which he highlighted as another big reason why it’s important to move ahead.

As to CAPP’s view of a working landscape, Montgomery laid out ideas for moving forward. “We believe that a working landscape must be looked at on a range-specific basis. It must provide certainty and cost effectiveness for industry and business flexibility. It must also allow for continued footprint innovation.”

A couple of the solutions he brought forward were prioritizing restoration work so areas that pose the greatest possibility for success to caribou populations are dealt with first and focusing on areas with the least conflict with development. “It doesn’t make sense to restore a seismic line in an area where there is going to be future road development,” he said.

Another option Montgomery mentioned was using Functional and Ecological Restoration in areas that pose an immediate risk to caribou. “Instead of replanting the forest along those lines, we would erect other forms of physical barriers. There is science to suggest that in early stages this would have an appreciable impact on caribou population.” Physically, barriers would include mounds, berms, and felling trees across the lines.

As far as implementation of restoration programs, Montgomery said CAPP would like to see it done on a shared-cost basis between the users of the land, including the oil and gas industry, the province and the federal government. “Both levels of government have indicated publicly that they would be prepared to contribute.” They would want the process to be managed by a third party, as directed by a multi-stake holder group, directed in part by government and industry who are contributing funds.

“We would also ask that, in wetland areas, the government redirect some funds they are currently collecting for wetland policy towards seismic restoration into those areas as those are some of the most difficult areas to restore from an ecological standpoint.” When it comes to population management, Montgomery said the industry would be supportive of a pilot-rearing facility is somewhere in the Little Smoky/A La Peche area if costs are shared and the facility located in an area most likely for caribou success.

Following his presentation, councillor Hilts asked if CAPP could provide range-specific analysis on the cost of caribou range planning to which Montgomery replied, “We haven’t done that analysis, but I would say that our numbers look at future economic activity by getting past the status quo and if you look at the one that is closest to Whitecourt, Little Smoky/A La Peche ranges, 99 per cent of that land is under lease to oil and gas activity today. On a proportionate scale, the greatest benefit would be to Little Smoky/A La Peche if we can get past this and get back on the landscape and working in a way that protects caribou and minimizes our impact. You also happen to have some of the best resources outside of the oil sands from an economic value standpoint.”