Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for coming back, Mr. Corson, to answer our questions.
Obviously it's very important that you are here. I, like many of my colleagues in this committee, have heard very different stories from what you have come to committee to share with us. I'm going to walk through some of the details.
Obviously, all of us here, myself included, are deeply troubled by what has happened and continues to happen at the Kearl site and by what it means for tailings ponds, for the environment, for freshwater and for the indigenous communities that are living downstream.
We know that the Kearl mine was built in a highly sensitive area. It was built right next to the wetlands feeding the Firebag River and Muskeg River systems. The review for the mine and tailings site recognized that there was higher permeability in the area proposed for the tailings ponds and that seepage from the tailings ponds could impact significant surface waters. The joint review panel stated that “the proposed location...overlies permeable surficial deposits that will likely be the primary pathway for transmission of process-affected tailings water.... The Joint Panel also [noted] that if unmitigated, this seepage will likely impact surface water bodies to the north, specifically the Firebag River and its three tributaries, and that groundwater and surface water quality could degrade.”
In other words, this was put into a place where it was expected to seep into the environment, and as a condition of approval for this site, the AER, the Alberta Energy Regulator, required Imperial Oil to conduct “a detailed hydrogeological” survey covering “a 5 kilometre radius of the plant;” to identify “groundwater flow patterns;” and to identify “depth to water table, patterns of groundwater movement and hydraulic gradients”.
Did Imperial Oil ever do this? Did it ever complete this hydrogeological survey?