[1] Statements made by Premier Smith in her presser on Feb. 9, related to the boonodoggle formerly known as R-Star, indicate that she is either misinformed, being purposely misleading, or both. Video at 6:40. +
[2] Asked a question about proposed royalty reduction in return for well closure program / drilling incentive pilot project, Smith replies by referring to changes to environmental standards that have nothing whatsoever to do with the inactive wells & flare pits targeted. +
[3] She says nobody wants to take on the liability associated with some 4,500 old pre-1980 flare pits. Duh! This is akin to saying nobody wants to take on the burden of making mortgage payments so let's buy all our political supporters expensive houses! +
[4] She refers to what she believes is a "joint obligation" to clean up the worst old oil well sites. She's mistaken. Well licensees alone have that responsibility at law. If they cease to exist that responsibility falls to "remaining industry" via Orphan Fund legislation. +
[5] She again refers to environmental rules that changed over time, conflating "legacy" wells that were closed long ago with inactive wells that have not been. This is like saying one missed buying a discount refrigerator on boxing day 1980 so govt. should pay for one now. +
[6] Companies failed to close wells / clean up flare pits when it was cheap & easy to do so. Taxpayer should now pay for expensive cleanup because it would be unfair to hold oil companies accountable for the stale-dated decisions of their executives that in hindsight are bad?
[7] Asked if there's a way to accomplish the program goals other than by subsidizing billion-$ international oil companies, Smith misleadingly says oil sands development and drilling have been incentivized, so why not cleanup? There are laws against it that's why. +
[8] The simplified principle Alberta laws are based on is (1) the polluter (licensee) pays failing which (2) the Orphan Fund, topped up by remaining industry members, pays. Yes it's getting expensive but that is what industry asked for about 1991 and that's reflected in law. +
[9] She then says the minister will consult with First Nations, municipalities (not directly affected) and industry, which of course is the huge benefactor. She mentions no consultation with those who will pay - the taxpayer or landowners who will be double dipped. +
[10] She also refers to two new aspects of law: (1) At the start of the reply a minimum spend target (on closure of inactive wells and site cleanup); and (2) landowner ability to nominate sites for closure. She implies the second point is new to proposed RStar, but it's not. +
[11] RStar undermines the newest feature of liability management policy - mandatory spending. She says they have to "do something" to accelerate cleanup - so watering down who picks up the tab for mandatory closure, before results are even measured, is the questionable plan. +
[12] The Oil & Gas Conservation Rules have recently been amended to allow landowners to nominate sites that have been inactive for more than 5 years for closure. Regulator is still explaining this to landowners & sorting out details. It's not new to RStar. Its conflation. +
[13] Industry doesn't like the promised polluter pay policies that govt. and Regulator have worked over since about 2017. So industry-captured new Premier, without thought to law or consequences, has foolishly listened to advisors like #KrisKinnear and Shane Sutherland. +
[14] With facts and legal reality in mind, listen to her replies to questions in the presser once again. Then call BS on the #RStarScam like experts and the Scotia Bank are doing.
Premier thinking RStar is doable is much like Smith thinking she has the power of amnesty. (fin)
Premier thinking RStar is doable is much like Smith thinking she has the power of amnesty. (fin)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
