Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Andrew Leach Profile picture
@andrew_leach
Apr 8 • 17 tweets • 6 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
So, this announcement is interesting since it commits to greenlight (or at least work with proponents and First Nations to approve) ten specific projects. I thought it was worth taking a look at a few of them (they are shown below): 1/ Image
The first one is pretty easy: LNG Canada Phase 2. The project has federal approval for the full two-phase capacity. The proposed emissions cap would not place output restrictions on LNG Canada. And, the power supply questions are provincial.
The last one on the list is where things get fun: Cape Ray. Cape Ray is listed as under assessment since 2017. That's true, but let's dig into why. Well, from 2017 until 2022, no environmental impact assessment documents were provided by Matador. There was nothing to assess.
In August of 2022, the proponent requested a three year extension of the time limit - TO SUBMIT THEIR MATERIALS - until August of 2025. The extension was granted and that's all we know for now from the IAAC. The project is being assessed under 2012 legislation though. Image
But, it gets more interesting. As far as I can tell, this project has been withdrawn from consideration in Newfoundland and Labrador? Since 2022? Oh, but it gets better still from here... Image
So, the project was originally proposed in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2016 too. Guess what happened then? Oh, right: NL set up and environmental assessment, approved guidelines, etc and then, after 3 deadline extensions, the project was kicked out of the process. Image
So, tell me dear readers: how is a @PierrePoilievre government going to overcome this hurdle? How, in a year, are they going to approve a project that, for 8+ years, has refused to submit a single environmental assessment document and has officially withdrawn it's project in NL?
@PierrePoilievre Do we want to do another one? Which one, I wonder?
@PierrePoilievre Springpole Lake Gold is a good one, since this one actually appears to be moving. They have, at the end of last year, finally submitted their Environmental Impact Statement. You can see it here: iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluation…
@PierrePoilievre This project too had requested a time extension to provide required documents, extending the regulatory process (again under the Harper-era CEAA 2012 rules) by three years before it even really began. Image
@PierrePoilievre Here's the timeline as envisioned initially by the proponent (again, this is under the IAAC but it's using the terms of the 2012 regs). This process was delayed 2+ years by the proponent, not by Trudeau. Image
@PierrePoilievre There's also a parallel process on this mine in Ontario (you know, section 92A and what not) which recently went through a public comment phase and is moving to a decision. Not sure how a federal government would ensure a particular decision here? Image
@PierrePoilievre Another, since I was curious: Upper Beaver Lake. This is probably an example of how the federal process can drag along. If @PierrePoilievre wants an example of the challenges, this might be it. The IAAC decided, in December of 2021 an assessment was needed iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluation…Image
@PierrePoilievre As of now, we're working away on an Impact Statement, leading to Impact Assessment, and working toward a decision timeline in March 2026. That's almost 5 years from beginning to end, and that does not get the mine all of its *FEDERAL* permits. The IAAC doesn't issue those. Image
@PierrePoilievre So, honestly, if @PierrePoilievre wants to talk about a project, this one might be it. Gold mining has a lot of environmental consequences, don't get me wrong, but I have to agree that we can get to a general answer (yes, with broad conditions or no) faster than this.
Rook 1 is perhaps similar. This one is a uranium mine in Saskatchewan. This one is moving through to hearings in November after an environmental impact statement was finalized in January. You can really see the back-and-forth on the timeline though iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluation…Image
Image
I don't know a lot about this project, but it seems to be moving through the regulatory process smoothly but slowly. That means that the proponent is likely looking at 8 years from application to final decision though (2019-2027) in the best case scenario now.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Andrew Leach

Andrew Leach Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @andrew_leach

Andrew Leach Profile picture
Apr 26
I think of three things when I vote: energy and environmental policies, economic policies, and whether policies are designed with an eye to those more vulnerable or facing greater risks than me. On those measures, this time around, there's no contest: vote for @MarkJCarney. 1/
If there were an outstanding local candidate, I might vote differently even if I disagreed with the party. But, as governments becime more centralized and caucus and opposition members have less influence, that's not as much of a factor now. 2/
And, yes, of course I'm frustrated with the carbon price repeal and the doubling down on less economically efficient measures to combate climate change that we've see from @MarkJCarney. But, the alternative is no policy and a reckless and uninformed approach to major projects. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Andrew Leach Profile picture
Apr 22
On resources and infrastructure, this platform is premised on a view of the world where provinces and First Nations are pushing for development and its the feds saying no. Q I'd be asking CPC today is what happens when that's not the case. 1/
First, on provinces, what would you do where a prov says no to a major project, e.g. a power plant, data centre, or LNG terminal? And what of pipelines or corridors? Some of the projects the CPC platform lists have been rejected by provinces and most are provincial jurisdiction.
And, on First Nations, how can you consult on a corridor w pre-approved development? You don't know which rights will be infringed, how, when, if ever, etc. You can't. Nations that might favour development might not be amenable to Carte Blanche approval of anything by anyone.
Read 4 tweets
Andrew Leach Profile picture
Apr 2
One of the largest projects on this list, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, was approved by the NEB in 2010, and issued a CPCN in early 2011. The project was expecting a 4-year construction timeline. How was the project not built during a strong, stable Conservative majority govt? Image
This might give you a sense: markets changed. They were a little worried that shale gas might be an issue, but were still counting on a North American market served by *NET LNG IMPORTS*. This is from the NEB Reasons for Decision in 2010. Wonder if the market might have changed? Image
Image
The NEB approved the project, the Harper government issued a certificate to build the project, and there was a sunset clause on this approval at the end of 2015. In August of 2015, having not advanced the project, the proponents requested an extension. Image
Read 4 tweets
Andrew Leach Profile picture
Apr 2
In case you're wondering, here's the list of currently approved but not under construction oil sands projects per the Alberta Energy Regulator. Wonder why companies aren't applying for new projects? All the players have decades of project backlog. Image
Oh, but why is no one applying for a new pipeline? CER has seen the Mainline expanded, the TMX pipeline built (and running under capacity) and there is an outstanding permit for KXL. Any new line has to justify need beyond that.
And LNG? There are multiple facilities (including LNG Canada Phase 2) with all approvals in-hand that are not, as of yet, proceeding. They are not waiting for federal approval. They are literally waiting for investors to evaluate the business case. Perhaps it's not as obvious?
Read 4 tweets
Andrew Leach Profile picture
Apr 1
Let's dig a bit into Frontier, because it's hilarious. First, reviewed under CEAA 2012 by a joint AB/Canada review panel. The applied in November, 2011 shortly after a strong, stable conservative majority government was elected. 4 years later, there was no decision.
The updated application for the project came in 2015, which is why it was assessed under CEAA, 2012 not CEAA 1992. In 2019, the review panel *finally* delivers a report. The report () finds the project to be in the public interest, but subject to conditions iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/…Image
Teck, the proponent, had a 21% interest in another, very similar and proximal project, Fort Hills. I imagine their experience with this project might have guided them in their thoughts on Frontier. Fort Hills was built for $17b and began operating in 2018. It's a debacle.
Read 5 tweets
Andrew Leach Profile picture
Apr 1
None of these projects were reviewed under the legislation contained in Bill c-69. Most were reviewed under CEAA 2012 ex MVP (CEAA 1992) and (where applicable) the same vintage of the NEB Act. Some were cancelled before Trudeau was elected. Some were DOA years before that.
How did the Liberal government block Carmon Creek? It was cancelled before they were elected. And Mackenzie Valley? Not even @PierrePoilievre can believe that was going to happen after gas prices collapsed from 2008 onward. And Frontier? After Teck lost money on Fort Hills? Nope.
@PierrePoilievre Saguenay? Blocked by the Quebec Government. Energy East? TC Energy and the Government of Alberta along with oil shippers bet on a revived KXL and subsequently on TMX. Those BC LNG terminals? Turns out a lot were cancelled in 2016-17 Wonder why? Did Trudeau do this? Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(