Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 APRIL 2008

Court Sends Kearl Decision Back For Clarification Of Rationale

The Federal Court has determined that the Joint Review Panel must provide better reasons why compliance with intensity-based greenhouse gas emissions targets adequately mitigates the Kearl Project’s emissions.

CanadaEnergy and Natural Resources

The Federal Court has determined that the Joint Review Panel must provide better reasons why compliance with "intensity-based" greenhouse gas emissions targets adequately mitigates the Kearl Project's emissions. The decision also clarifies that uncertainty is a normal part of environmental assessment and is a factor to be managed.

On March 5, 2008 the Federal Court determined that the Joint Review Panel hearing Imperial's Kearl Lake oil sands application failed to provide a sufficient rationale in its report about why greenhouse gas emissions intensity targets adequately mitigated the climate change effect of the proposed project. The court's decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, et al v. Attorney General of Canada and Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited means that the Panel will have to provide reasons why the proposed climate change compliance measures will prevent a

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from