The Ministry of Energy and Mines is ignoring recommendations from everywhere, even from the consultants they’ve paid to advise them.
The Summit Environmental Consultants report is not the first.
Dr. Anthony Gorody is an “earth sciences professional” from Houston who works with industry and government to help them manage public perceptions -and the economic risks associated with those perceptions – of environmental risks associated with coalbed methane development. He advocates for baseline water quality studies, because non-impacted water “frequently contain a wide variety of contaminants, at levels that violate EPA drinking water limits. A targeted environmental risk evaluation can quickly and inexpensively identify these conditions and provide a baseline for managing the risks of subsequent development.” link
Gorody: on managing environmental risk
Gorody: baseline water quality study in Raton Basin
Gas Impact Study Recommends Further Research
In July 2003, Dr. Gorody appeared at a meeting in Hat Creek as a consultant to the Ministry of Energy and Mines. He stated that it is essential to know initial conditions by means of baseline studies, and that “no go” must be an option, which the BC government is unprepared to agree to.
Earlier in 2003, Dr. Marc Bustin, a petroleum and coal geologist from the University of British Columbia, and partner in CBM Solutions Ltd. was speaking in Hudson’s Hope. Dr. Bustin said that baseline studies are absolutely necessary before development takes place – and that the proponent should be paying for them.
The Minister of Energy and Mines, Richard Neufeld, however, refuses to agree that baseline studies must be done at a pre-development stage.
Citizens (of two countries), First Nations, local and state governments are at an impasse with the government of BC. On the one hand, are those who would exercise the precautionary principle, and insist on knowing conditions in advance of any issuance of rights to explore the coalbed methane potential in the area; and the BC government whose view is that their “results-based” regulatory regime will ensure a benign operation.
We do not accept that position.