<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization</title>
	<link>http://ablawg.ca/2008/05/21/federal-court-upholds-nullification-of-kearl-oil-sands-authorization/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 17:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Shaun</title>
		<link>http://ablawg.ca/2008/05/21/federal-court-upholds-nullification-of-kearl-oil-sands-authorization/#comment-1968</link>
		<dc:creator>Shaun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:18:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://ablawg.ca/2008/05/21/federal-court-upholds-nullification-of-kearl-oil-sands-authorization/#comment-1968</guid>
		<description>I agree Information Letter IL 96-7 EUB/AENV Memorandum of Understanding on Oil Sands Developments (online ) applies here, and thanks for noting this.  The MOU, however, reiterates the ERCB's obligation under section 3 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act (ERCA) to have regard to the social, economic and environmental effects of an energy project.  I don't see how IL 96-7 alters this obligation.  And it troubles me to think that a "policy of consistency of disposition" would influence the ERCB's decision-making under its statutory ERCA section 3 obligation.

Your comment does highlight the incremental land-use decision-making process in Alberta, and its highly problematic potential to constrain the ERCB's decisions.  Many have criticized Alberta's land-use regulatory framework in this regard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree Information Letter IL 96-7 EUB/AENV Memorandum of Understanding on Oil Sands Developments (online ) applies here, and thanks for noting this.  The MOU, however, reiterates the ERCB&#8217;s obligation under section 3 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act (ERCA) to have regard to the social, economic and environmental effects of an energy project.  I don&#8217;t see how IL 96-7 alters this obligation.  And it troubles me to think that a &#8220;policy of consistency of disposition&#8221; would influence the ERCB&#8217;s decision-making under its statutory ERCA section 3 obligation.</p>
<p>Your comment does highlight the incremental land-use decision-making process in Alberta, and its highly problematic potential to constrain the ERCB&#8217;s decisions.  Many have criticized Alberta&#8217;s land-use regulatory framework in this regard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oh My...</title>
		<link>http://ablawg.ca/2008/05/21/federal-court-upholds-nullification-of-kearl-oil-sands-authorization/#comment-1870</link>
		<dc:creator>Oh My...</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:38:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://ablawg.ca/2008/05/21/federal-court-upholds-nullification-of-kearl-oil-sands-authorization/#comment-1870</guid>
		<description>Of note is the ERCB's ability to approve projects contingent on conditions and approvals related to the memorandum of understanding held with the AENV (IL 96-7). Should the AENV deem the project acceptable, application processing follows a policy of consistency of disposition and the project obtains approval (should it meet all other technical, economic and social requirements).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of note is the ERCB&#8217;s ability to approve projects contingent on conditions and approvals related to the memorandum of understanding held with the AENV (IL 96-7). Should the AENV deem the project acceptable, application processing follows a policy of consistency of disposition and the project obtains approval (should it meet all other technical, economic and social requirements).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ABlawg.ca &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized</title>
		<link>http://ablawg.ca/2008/05/21/federal-court-upholds-nullification-of-kearl-oil-sands-authorization/#comment-1612</link>
		<dc:creator>ABlawg.ca &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://ablawg.ca/2008/05/21/federal-court-upholds-nullification-of-kearl-oil-sands-authorization/#comment-1612</guid>
		<description>[...] on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

