Proposed Oil Developments Close to Home; Know Your Facts.

The issue of oil and gas exploration and development in residential areas has recently been a contentious issue for Albertans. While concerns over drilling are not new, a proposed development in the city of Lethbridge in Southwest Alberta has sparked a strong reaction from residents in the area.

Concerns about air and water quality have drawn increased scrutiny from environmental and community organizations, while the energy industry has responded with increased emphasis on corporate responsibility as a method of communicating environmental stewardship.

Organizations such as the Institute of Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy Students’ Association are committed to create a conversation about the relationship between the energy industry and the environment with interested students, and we believe that the prospective development in the city of Lethbridge is worth examining critically.

Goldenkey Oil Inc., an oil company based in Calgary, has purchased ten sections of land within the city of Lethbridge for $500,000, most of which underlies undeveloped acreage within the municipal boundaries of Lethbridge, causing concern for residents and future residential developers. While there is not a prohibition against drilling in urban areas according to Alberta legislation, nearby residents are worried about the effects that potential operations may have on their day-to-day activities and long-term health.

Are the residents justified in their concerns? David Hill, an independent consultant and representative of Goldenkey Inc. believes that many residents of Lethbridge are not aware of the existing oil and gas development currently ongoing within the city limits and is simply adding to existing oil and gas infrastructure. A dangerous goods route goes through much of the main parts of the city, even through University Drive frequented by thousands of students on a daily basis. Hill stated that “the largest problem is the general unwillingness of the citizens to look at the facts, especially in regard to the assumed environmental concerns.”

Currently the city of Lethbridge and other community organizations are officially opposed to the development, citing numerous reasons why no oil and gas development should be pursued. Calgary MLA Dr. David Swann who has been an active advocate for the citizens of Lethbridge says that there are some legitimate concerns, such as potential risk of blowout and the threat of injuries or fatalities caused by potential exposure to hydrogen sulfide. In addition to the risk of blowout, residents are also concerned about potentially negative effects on their groundwater due to the hydraulic fracturing process. The city of Lethbridge has indicated that there will be future housing development in the affected area, and that the “setback distance would decrease or sterilize developable land.”

Some of these concerns can be evaluated. For example, the hydraulic fracturing proposed by Goldenkey would not be a multistage “frack,” but a single stage “frack,” leaving less potential for impact on water quality. In addition, urban areas across North America currently have wells operating within city limits. In Calgary for example, there are 24 wells currently operating – most of which are the result of urban sprawl enveloping prior development in these high population areas, coupled with greater transparency on the part of producers.

Goldenkey Oil has held several open houses in order to keep the community informed, and is taking great measures to ensure that the City of Lethbridge is fully informed as a stakeholder. Residents are encouraged to check out Goldenkey’s project website where input on the oil development project is being collected, and explains nearly all aspects of the project.

Goldenkey has also committed to reclaim any disturbed land before any future subdivision development, “raising the bar” in regards to respect for the environment and the community.

This type of development has the potential to even benefit the citizens of Lethbridge, as Goldenkey also plans to properly consult and compensate individual land owners

For the city of Lethbridge and Goldenkey, the problem seems to stem from lack of communication between residents and the producer. Goldenkey representative David Hill stated that “there is a general reluctance to look at the facts of the project and opt instead to fan the flames of negative speculation with fear.” Hill feels that most residents are only willing to see the potential dangers and not the benefits of this project, which in turn discourages future oil producers from public consultation. The evident gap in communication illustrates the opportunity and necessity for education for both industry and the general public.

There is the potential for increased stakeholder education, and for stakeholders to seek out impartial information regarding future projects. The interplay between the city of Lethbridge and Goldenkey Oil can serve as a lesson on how to critically analyze energy and environmental issues, and use meaningful dialogue to bridge the educational gap.