When Certainty is Far From Certain

In late summer of 2010 when the German Federal Institute of Geoscience entered into an agreement with Natural Resources Canada to conduct seismic testing in Canada's North, they believed they had correctly submitted all of the appropriate paperwork right up until they received an injunction which eradicated two years of preparation and removed their window of opportunity to proceed. It is well known that much of the engineering work done in the marine arctic environment requires several permits and approvals. Indeed, the overlapping jurisdiction of various national and international bodies along with territorial, provincial, state and local governments has created a patchwork quilt of regulatory regimes and agencies responsible for the implantation and enforcement of these numerous regulatory requirements. In this reality, it can be extremely challenging to determine which approvals and permits are required for any particular project or undertaking and the appropriate regulatory bodies with which to engage . However it's also becoming increasingly apparent that once those approvals are obtained there is no clear sense of whether they will be adequate to allow the project to proceed. Traditionally, proponents have created project timelines that have assumed (understandably) that once environmental and other approvals are obtained they will have certainty that they may proceed. This paper will describe some of the reasons why project approvals do not always provide certainty that the project development process may proceed as planned. One of the most recent example of the nature of uncertainties in this area was the recent (summer, 2010) case referenced above: Qikiqtani Inuit Association v. Canada. The case found that seismic testing that had been thought to have obtained all necessary approvals, could not proceed as the proponent (the government of Canada) had not adequately consulted with the Inuit of the region or accommodated their interests. The case is but one example of such a situation that can cause significant trouble for proponents. This paper will further assess and describe the Qikiqtani case , and discuss additional similar situations where apparently approved undertakings were unexpectedly, but similarly, delayed.

• Record URL:
  http://www.poac.com/Papers/POAC11_80-192.zip
• Summary URL:
  http://www.poac.com/PapersOnline.html
• Availability:
  • Find a library where document is available. Order URL: http://worldcat.org/issn/03766756
• Supplemental Notes:
  • Abstract reprinted with permission of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions (POAC).
• Corporate Authors:

  Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions (POAC)

  ,    
• Authors:
  • Chamberlain, Adam
• Conference:
  • 21st International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions (POAC'11)
  • Location: Montréal , Canada
  • Date: 2011-7-10 to 2011-7-14
• Publication Date: 2011

Language

• English

Media Info

• Media Type: Digital/other
• Pagination: 8p
• Monograph Title: POAC '11: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions
• Serial:
  • Proceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions
  • Publisher: Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions (POAC)
  • ISSN: 0376-6756
  • EISSN: 2077-7841
  • Serial URL: http://www.poac.com/PapersOnline.html

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Permits; Project management; Regulation; Seismic prospecting
• Uncontrolled Terms: Project development
• Geographic Terms: Arctic Regions; Canada
• Subject Areas: Administration and Management; Law; Marine Transportation; I10: Economics and Administration;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 01563185
• Record Type: Publication
• Report/Paper Numbers: POAC11-190
• Files: TRIS
• Created Date: May 18 2015 11:00AM