COMMUNITIES O

MOVE … LITERAL

If you build it, they might come. But what happens when they leave? That’s the dilemma facing many thriving oil and gas, energy and mining operations that have set their sights on development in remote communities throughout northern Canada.

With the rebound in the resource industries, the sectors are surging ahead with projects that will quickly grow existing communities or instantly create new ones. But past booms and busts have shown that building a community infrastructure isn’t that simple — especially when the production life cycle will peter out within 20 to 25 years.

The questions being asked around the planning table are different from days gone by: How do we get it up and running as quickly as possible? How can we do it in an environmentally sustainable way? And what do we do with it all once the boom is over?

There is a lot of overseas mining activity in the Yukon, for example, that will demand infrastructure building in what were once virgin territories, notes John Berg, architect and senior associate for engineering firm Stantec in Whitehorse, Yukon. “The biggest obstacle for these people coming in is dealing with the environmental im- pact and delivering an infrastructure that they have to have up and running in a matter of months.

“That includes electrical, mechanical, structural and architectural planning.”

Infrastructure and life cycle planners need only look at the fallout of aggressive postwar development to know what not to do. When the market faltered, many communities were virtually abandoned after operations closed.

But as Scott Weston, mining sector leader for Hemmera in Vancouver, which specializes in environmental management and infrastructure design, notes, today’s planning exercises are far more future-focused.

“You need to build in a way that the smallest footprint of land is disturbed. You have to design taking into account the potential impact on human health, socio-economic and socio-community factors. And you have to consider the entire life cycle of a community and plan for closure in 10 or 20 years’ time. What’s the cost of cleanup when you’re done?”

Governments have become increasingly leery about being left on the hook for project cleanups, he adds.

“People are now planning projects for closure so they minimize footprint and environmental impact while supporting economic development. I’m also seeing progressive reclamation, in which they remove liabilities they go rather than waiting 19 ye to start.”

As part of that, organizations increasingly considering modu and portable infrastructure solutio from communications, energy a water-treatment systems to housi and community buildings. The r sons are simple: Modular transla into cheaper to build, faster to depl and, more importantly, easier to d mantle, move or recycle.

On the economic front, Mr. West notes that the scale of today’s op ations is much bigger and the amp tude of these booms and busts a getting larger. Translation: comp ies need to get operational as quic as possible to justify the investmen

The outcomes of modular think also deliver positive benefits on t environmental front, Mr. Weston sa “Having something that is tempor and can be moved is good from environmental perspective. And y can scale up or down throughout t life cycle of the project. That’s a mu more sustainable approach. A every mining company is thinki that way right now. It’s a new sta dard for how you do business.”

Bioteq Environmental Techno gies Inc. in Vancouver has work with resource industries on susta able water treatment technologi According to company CEO Jonath