Vapour Intrusion Webinar – May 31st

Land Science is pleased to present a webinar with Dr. Kenneth S. Tramm, a founding Principal with Texas-based engineering firm, Modern Geosciences.  In our previous webinar, Dr. Tramm discussed how vapor intrusion is impacting the environmental due diligence industry, with a focus on screening for vapor intrusion.  During this upcoming free webinar, Dr. Tramm will provide us with an overview on investigating vapor intrusion and understanding risk.

Joining Dr. Tramm will be Thomas Szocinski, Director of Vapor Intrusion at Land Science, who will share successful vapor mitigation case studies.

Key vapor intrusion topics include:

  • Assessment of vapor intrusion
  • Installation of soilgas monitoring points
  • An overview of the tailored vapor intrusion evaluations that are possible

Date and Time

Wednesday, May 31st, 2017 11am Pacific / 2pm Eastern


To register for the webinar, visit

Failure to Report Spill results in $50,000 Fine

Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, headquartered in Toronto, recently plead guilty to one offence under the Canadian Fisheries Act for failing to report a spill.  The case was heard in the Nunavut Court of Justice.  The court ordered the company to pay a total penalty of $50,000, which will be directed to the federal Environmental Damages Fund.  As a result of this conviction, the company’s name will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

The guilty plea arose from an incident that occurred in August 2013 at the Meadowbank Gold Mine in Nunvut.  An inspection by inspectors from the Environment Canada and Climate Change (the Canadian equivalent to the U.S. EPA) revealed seepage from the tailings impoundment area into an area immediately next to a fish-bearing waterbody.  The release had not been reported to an Environment and Climate Change Canada inspector or to the territorial spill line.  Following an investigation by the Department’s enforcement officers, the company was charged under subsection 38(4) of the Fisheries Act -failing to notify an inspector following the unauthorized deposit of a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish.


Funding for Clean Technology in Ontario

As reported by Gowlings LLP, The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) recently took another step toward implementing the goals in the Ontario Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP).  By filing the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corporation regulation, the MOECC created a new non-share capital corporation to stimulate the development of clean technology and assist with reducing barriers that may inhibit the implementation of the CCAP and its goals.

What you need to know

The corporation, called the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corporation (“OCCSDC”), was designed to further the provincial deployment of clean technology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is tasked with meeting this broad purpose by:

  • providing information;
  • engaging in marketing;
  • providing services and arranging for others to be provided with services;
  • providing incentives and engaging in financing activities;
  • stimulating private sector financing; and
  • researching market barriers inhibiting the deployment of clean technology.

Interestingly, research and development are expressly excluded from the scope of the duties of the OCCSDC.

The regulation places a focus on developing programs that will maximize absolute greenhouse gas reductions and stimulate the use of clean technology by low-income households.  Additional programs will be directed at:

  • switching from using fossil fuels to other sources of energy;
  • energy storage (of various forms);
  • renewable energy;
  • retrofitting existing structures to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions;
  • stimulating economies of scale in technology;
  • stimulating private sector financing; and
  • stimulating the construction of buildings that significantly exceed provincial energy efficiency requirements (think net-zero and net-positive construction).

The corporation will be funded in part by the proceeds of Ontario’s cap and trade program, which the Ontario Government estimates to be approximately $2 billion per year.


Why is this important?

Since the closure of Ontario’s coal power plants in 2014 (an event which went generally unnoticed by both the press and the general public), the province’s mighty electric power system has become one of the least carbon reliant in the world.  To reduce its GHG footprint further, Ontario must now look to sectors outside of the electricity sector.  Under Ontario’s CCAP, there are new clean-tech business opportunities arising in transportation, built infrastructure (buildings and homes), land use planning, commercial industry, First Nations Communities, agriculture and the MUSH sector.  There may also be opportunities in contaminated site clean-up and brownfield redevelopment.  The OCCSDC is intended to work in tandem with the CCAP to drive change and stimulate economic opportunities.

Ontario has the tremendous luxury of not being the first jurisdiction in the world to set up a green bank.  The UK, Japan, Australia and Malaysia have all cut a path through the forest.  Over the past nine years in the U.S., several green banks have been set up at the state level.  Of these, New York, California, Hawaii and Connecticut provide excellent examples.  Additionally, the concept of the green bank is essentially similar to that of an export development bank – something Ontario businesses are accustomed to working with at the federal level.  The key element of a green bank is that it uses public funds, tailored credit requirements and moderately innovative financing techniques to lever private sector finance and commercial innovation capacity in order to achieve specific policy goals.  With Ontario’s OCCSDC the focus will be – as it should be – on commercially viable technologies rather than research or early-stage innovation.

The best green banks bring global knowledge and understanding to local markets, use their strategic position to develop market capacity where the private sector would otherwise be unable to, use credit-enhancement, co-investment, securitization and other financing tools to diffuse risk, create scale and mitigate private sector project risk.  Ontario’s OCCSDC appears poised to do most of this and, in addition, it also promises to provide direct small-scale incentives and financing to consumers and to businesses to drive practical and attitudinal change.

 Where are the opportunities?

The key is to remember that the OCCSDC is intended to work in tandem with the CCAP to drive change and stimulate economic opportunities.  These mechanisms provide a “stick and carrot” approach.  The other thing to remember is, as several have already said, this is a big deal.  This program has the potential to impact most of the economy, including a number of key sectors and industries.

 What comes next?

The Board of the OCCSDC is currently being assembled.  After this happens, it will take time for programs to be developed and launched.  As well, key details on the operation of the new corporation – including reporting obligations, how it will interact with existing and emerging federal and provincial bodies such as the Ontario Energy Board and the emerging federal infrastructure bank – will need to be finalized and revealed.  That being said, there is significant pressure on the province to get things underway.

Given the grave, global impact of carbon and other GHG emissions and the very diffuse nature of the GHG problem for Ontario, the OCCSDC and its parent policy, the CCAP, promise to drive gradual and fundamental change and to create substantial economic opportunities across many sectors.  As with green banks elsewhere, early renditions are likely to have flaws and there will undoubtedly be missteps.  That being said, considering the sums involved and given the experience seen in other jurisdictions, the launch of the OCCSDC will create economic growth and innovation opportunity and, ultimately, should help Ontario meet its GHG objective.   This one’s, as the saying goes, got legs.


NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only.  It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice.  You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information.  Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website.  Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.


About the Authors


Benjamin Ojoleck is an articling student in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office.   Benjamin graduated from Dalhousie University’s Schulich School of Law in 2016 with his Juris Doctor, and an additional specialization certificate in Environmental Law.  During law school, he pursued his interests by working as a research assistant to a law professor on a variety of environmental law-related topics, such as the development of renewable energy, including tidal energy, in Nova Scotia.

Thomas J. Timmins is a Partner in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office.  He is widely recognized as a leading lawyer in energy, infrastructure and commercial transactions, and his practice focuses on corporate, commercial and transactional law across a number of sectors. Tom has led several of the firm’s most significant power and infrastructure sector transactions and regularly acts for a wide range of corporations, investors, government agencies and financial institutions around the world.

The full article can be found at Gowlings WGP website here.

Brownfield Clean-up Success in Brantford

As reported in the Brantford Expositor, officials for the City of Brantford (a municipality of 97,000 located in southwestern Ontario) are celebrating the end of a massive effort that cleaned 148,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil at the 20-hectare (50-acre) Greenwich-Mohawk brownfield site.  The clean-up took nnn years to complete and costs just over $40.8 million

Background on the Site

The former brownfield is a land assembly of 3 properties at the intersection of Greenwich Street and Mohawk Street.  The properties were once the home of a number of farm industry manufacturers including Massey Ferguson, Massey Harris, Verity Plow, Cockshutt Plow, and Adams Wagon Factories.  When the industries closed down, the property was abandoned.

As part of the City’s brownfield initiative, the remediation and redevelopment of the Greenwich-Mohawk brownfield site was identified as a priority for municipal investment to initiate private sector interest.  In 2002, the City commissioned the “Greenwich-Mohawk Streets Brownfields Sites Remediation Study”, which examined the opportunities and constraints of the property in its existing state.  The study was approved by Council in 2004 and has since guided the City in all of its actions carried out on the site.

The major contaminants on the sites were related to historic uses of the lands.  The contaminants included petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s).  Vinyl chloride was also found at one of the properties.

Throughout the property acquisition process, the City worked to remove barriers to development on the site.  This included eliminating the existing liens and tax arrears on the property, demolishing unsafe buildings, as well as removing debris, combustible materials, and underground storage tanks.  Additionally, the City carried out further environmental and structural investigations in a number of areas throughout the site.


Clean-up Methodology

The major clean-up project began in the Spring of 2015 following a Remedial Options Feasibility Study report in 2014.

In total, 148,900 cubic metres of contaminated soil was excavated.  Of this 35,740 cubic metres (24%) was above the original remediation estimates.  In terms of sustainability: 73% of the contaminated soil was treated on site and reused, and only 27% of soil was disposed offsite.

Biopiles were used to treat contaminated soil that was subsequently re-used.  It was chosen over other alternative treatment methods as it was found to be the lowest cost alternative and it provided for onsite treatment rather than offsite disposal.

The clean-up also involved the skimming of 120,000 litres of oil from the groundwater.  The remaining contaminants in the groundwater were treated using air sparging and soil vapour extraction.

To prevent re-contamination of the property from the adjacent rail spur line, barriers were built on city property adjacent to the privately owned rail corridor.  An underground liner was placed on the property boundary with the rail line to reinforce an existing trench built in 2001 to collect and filter groundwater that flows south from the site.

Also, a Waterloo Barrier® was installed at the northern boundary of the property in an area where a wooden tank containing heavy-end petroleum hydrocarbons was discovered during the cleanup.  Although the tank was removed, there was still a large quantity of odorous soil on the site which couldn’t be removed without releasing odorous vapours throughout the neighbourhood.  The barrier is about five to six metres deep and resembles a triangular box will keep the remaining contaminated soil in place.

Funding for the Clean-up

The $40.8 million for clean-up came from several sources.  The Ontario government contributed $5 million to the project.  The federal government also provided $12 million.  The city also received a $23-million loan from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund and a $512,520 grant from the same fund for the project.

The city, meanwhile, contributed just over $1.87 million to the effort.

A City of Brantford staff report prepared for councillors says the total budget for the cleanup effort was just over $42.8 million. Of that, just over $40.78 million has been spent.


Planning staff are now working on a “preferred approach” to redevelop the site as part of the Mohawk Lake district revitalization strategy.  The strategy includes the proposed revitalization of Mohawk Lake, the canal, as well as extension of Veterans Memorial Parkway and the Canadian Industrial Heritage Centre’s efforts to revitalize the time keepers building at one of the three properties as a museum.


U.S. Spill Response in the Arctic Criticized

Less than a month after the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) criticized Canada for being unprepared for an oil spill in the arctic, the U.S. Coast Guard has drawn the criticism of the Alaska Maritime Prevention and Response Network.

As reported in Maritime Executive, there was much criticism of the U.S. Coast Guard before the Committee on Transport and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.  Buddy Custard, President and CEO of the Alaska Maritime Prevention & Response Network, was one of the individuals that testified at the recent hearing of the Committee.

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was enacted in 1990 after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. OPA, in conjunction with the U.S. Clean Water Act, requires an owner or operator of a tank vessel, or non-tank vessel over 400 gross tons to prepare a vessel response plan for spills of oil or hazardous substances.  While many areas of the U.S. comply with the national planning criteria for oil spill response, there are still areas with low population and vessel traffic that cannot, and instead use alternative planning criteria (APC).

“The Coast Guard’s implementation of APC in Western Alaska is eroding oil spill response capabilities in the Western Alaska Captain of the Port zone,” says Custard.  The zone comprises over one million square miles of ocean with little infrastructure.

“The maritime shipping industry is experiencing economic hardship, with container shipping lines likely to have incurred combined losses of over $5 billion in 2016.  As a result, the industry is seeking ways to meet OPA 90 requirements at the lowest possible price and with the minimum needed to meet oil spill response readiness.  The Coast Guard’s implementation of APC in Western Alaska is playing into this dynamic,” says Custard.

The Coast Guard has approved APC providers that cover only limited areas and with minimal equipment, allowing them to lower prices to take market share, he says.  The situation has led to a large disparity of prevention and response capabilities among the Western Alaska APC providers.

“The Coast Guard claims there is now more response equipment in Western Alaska due to multiple providers.  This is a mischaracterization of how equipment is allocated among holders of a vessel response plan.  The only equipment available to a vessel plan-holder is the equipment provided in their specific APC provider’s program. Approximately 40-45 percent of the vessels transiting through Western Alaska have less response capabilities than they did 18 months ago.”

The Coast Guard has failed to hold APC providers accountable, largely because of the agency’s inability to enforce its own rules, says Custard. He also states that Coast Guard policy, as now administered, benefits foreign flag operators at the expense of Alaskans.

“New entrants entering the APC program market for Western Alaska have focused for the most part only on foreign flag vessels transiting the Great Circle Route where revenue can be collected with minimum investment in equipment. Under the Captain of the Port-wide model, APC coverage is provided to U.S. flag vessels providing most of the service to places along the vast coast of Western Alaska, in part with revenue derived from the high volume foreign flag traffic.

“As revenue is diverted away from the only APC provider covering the entire Western Alaska Captain of the Port, the U.S. flag vessels plying the coasts of Western Alaska must pay more. This, in turn, increases the cost of goods shipped on these vessels, which increases the cost of groceries, heating fuel, or fuel to generate electric power to remote and rural Alaska.

“Unfortunately, the determination of the true cost of developing and sustaining oil spill removal equipment in an area the size, remoteness, and complexities present in Western Alaska has never been conducted. Additionally, the potential adverse economic impacts to the coastal communities that are dependent upon the maritime industry have never been considered nor assessed by the government.”

Custard says the Coast Guard’s implementation of APC in Western Alaska does not properly value prevention. “APC guidance needs to be viewed holistically within the marine environmental protection program – a balance of prevention and response. Driving down risk of an oil pollution incident, and thus preventing it, should be on par if not greater than response capabilities.”


The Development and Implementation of Oil Spill Technology in Europe

As reported in the Hellenic Shipping News, a mix of methods plus more interest from the private sector characterise the development of oil spill technology and methods in and around ports. More efficient chemicals, boats and booms are all coming to the aid of clean ups.

Suppliers and users agree that the best way to limit the effects of an incident is to rely on a combination of methods and not look for a single panacea or believe in the ‘one size fits all philosophy’. The common theme among the latest methods is that they can be adapted to be used on almost any size of spill.

Finland’s Lamor specialises in booms and skimmers that can be attached to and operated by vessels. Dan Beyer, US general manager of Lamor, says: “It’s a pretty competitive market in the products that we offer. Norway’s NOFO has put our Marine Oil Spill Sweeper (LMOS) through a rigorous testing regime which, unlike the US, involves putting a specified, measured quantity of oil in the water and removing it. We came out on top for all the products.”

Boom sizes range from 15 metres to 50 metres, used in offshore operations. “We are able to undertake large sweeps very fast,” says Mr Beyer. Lamor has sold a unit to the US Air Force in Greenland, while orders have come from Norway, Brazil, Ireland’s Coast Guard and other countries.

Booms are “another tool in the tool belt”, says Mr Beyer. “I am an environmentalist who strives to keep the environment as pure as possible,” he says. “Why introduce another chemical into the water to remove a chemical that is there?”

Although the Deepwater Horizon spill caused a huge international outcry and political furore in the US, Mr Beyer notes that the U.S. has been extremely environmentally aware since the Exxon Valdez incident in 1989. “The Oil Pollution Act was introduced very soon afterwards, in 1990, and generally the authorities and industry have been really pro-active.”

His advice for ports and the industry is to check the equipment and anti-pollution inventory regularly and make sure there is equipment and service back up.

Lamor’s future target is the Arctic. “Drilling is increasing there all the time and we don’t see the US or Canada as having enough spill response equipment. The Russians are ahead tenfold in both icebreaking technology and oil spill clean-up.

Research and Development

Dutch technological start up Oilspill Cleaning and Rescue Solutions (OCRS) is securing a partner for its liquid polyurethane foam that captures oil and other pollutants. “We hope to finish the research and development within the next nine months,” says co-founder Henk Smith. Technological and financial incubation help has come from two local authority incubation agencies, the Port of Rotterdam’s Port Innovation Lab and Yes!Delft. Mr Smith says it is usual for funding for anti-pollution research and development to come from the government as the private sector is “risk averse to this sort of investment”.

In this technology, foam is sprayed on the spill, absorbs the oil like a sponge and is pumped onto a storage vessel where the water and oil are separated and can be reused. Any water is returned into the sea after being filtered. Oil will be stored on board in tanks for recycling into the economy. The remaining absorbent (carpet) can be pressed and stored in containers. One litre of foam is capable of absorbing nine litres of diesel oil.

Gobbler Boats in the UK uses sweep arms on its vessels to collect up to 960 tonnes of oil in 24 hours. The collected oil is pumped internally and transferred to quick release bladders towed astern. “The oil resale value alone pays for the vessel in just 3-1/2 days,” says founder and co-director Paul Jauncey.

The company is now working on a mini hovercraft vessel which will be able to recover oil from a beach or riverbank. Some of the development cost is being covered by a government tax credit for research and development projects. Many countries have this r&d tax credit scheme, particularly for those innovative companies who make a difference. This gives businesses more capital to work with for their projects.

Herd instinct

Matthew Sommerville, executive committee member of International Spill Control Organization (ISCO), notes that a herd instinct applies throughout the world in implementing spill control. “When one country does something, all countries do it. You get a big incident and everyone jumps on it, then there is nothing for another five years.”

Following the principle of “better to be safe than sorry”, he says: “People buy equipment but no one intends to use it and it might sit around for 20 years. It’s not an industry where there is lots of repeat business and there are fewer people needed to operate it.

“In the Deepwater Horizon incident, BP bought every piece of equipment it could lay hands on, and much of it was unused – which the company has been selling off or sending to port authorities and other companies.” Regulations continue to be distinctly different between the US and Europe, with the US specifying the equipment a port must have and Europe opting for the Tier l, II and III approach – responses on a local, regional and international scope.

“The Torrey Canyon made governments and ports throughout the world realise they had to work together and since then there has been an emphasis on world co-operation,” says Mr Sommerville.

The establishment of international response centres, including Southampton and Bahrain, was possibly the most tangible result of the intense urgency for co-operation. “Looking at the worst-case scenario, you can’t keep enough equipment to deal with it.”

Changes of Officials

A reality of government life that ISCO has to deal with is regular changes of officials. “A department becomes knowledgeable about the industry but the staff changes every two to three years and you have to start at the beginning again,” says Mr Sommerville.

Most ports now employ an environmental expert and even a separate department, which the ISCO applauds, but safeguards and controls have become so effective that many have not had a serious incident in 10 years. “They tend to forget what the potential problems are. A five-tonne spill today has as much effect on a port as 100 tonnes a few years ago

“Ports need to think about what they have done recently and keep up to date. When was the last time a third party checked at what has changed? Contact details of key people often still list radios/pagers when everyone is using cellphones, and these can pose a problem because in critical situations people have to talk for huge amounts of time and the batteries run down.”

Mr. Sommerville adds that the industry also has to adapt equipment to deal with the huge vessels that are now commonplace. “The Napoli incident in the UK involved a 2,000 tonne ship – and that took two years to unload.”

Difficulty with Drones

The industry sees drones as a natural and obvious tool in monitoring and measuring spills, but there is some difficulty, particularly in Europe and the US, in getting technology companies interested.

“These are concentrating on other uses such as package delivery – which get the public attention – and environmental uses are seen as somewhat boring,” says a US maritime consultant. “Investors are putting more money into the popular uses. It’s not a coincidence that those looking at environmental uses often have to rely on backing from public authorities or the central government.”

In Singapore, the Port and Maritime Authority is testing the Water Spider, designed to monitor oil spills, with funding coming from government agencies. Able to take off from and land on sea surfaces, the drone can be operated from patrol craft. According to a government statement, it is “tethered to a power source onboard the patrol craft, which gives a much longer endurance of three hours compared to 30 minutes for an untethered drone”.

In the UK, Martek Marine has been awarded a two-year contract from the European Maritime Safety Agency to fly drones for a number of operations that will include pollution and oil spill monitoring.

The International Spill Control Organization embraces the use of drones, but cautions that they are not a perfect solution on their own. “You still need the human eyeball to see what is really going on,” says the organisation’s Matthew Sommerville.

“The drones can collect massive amounts of data, but you still need a trained human to analyse the data, determine how serious a spill is and work out priorities.”

University of Saskatchewan Developing Technology to Clean-up Oil Spills

As reported by CTV News, Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan are developing a new soil to clean up spilled oil and gas from gas station sites. The researchers are planning to add cattle bio-waste to soil that will trap and remove petroleum. Some gas stations already hire commercial cleaning services that could be helpful with cleaning up gas that customers spill as well as other pollutants.

“It’s almost like putting the site on an IV, where we give it a low dose of nutrients and other things that will make them happy and they do the work for us,” Derek Peak, a soil scientist at the university, said.

The cattle waste materials will be converted into a water-based material, which will be injected into soil at gas stations and former gas station sites to help bacteria break down the petroleum.

According to the university, more than 30,000 gas station sites across Canada are contaminated. Many of these sites are left abandoned because businesses are reluctant to rebuild on contaminated land.

“It creates a little bit of inertia around these sites where nothing seems to happen, and that’s the biggest challenge we see,” said Lesley Anderson, the City of Saskatoon’s planning and development director.

“Typically what we want to see is that polluter of a site carries forward the risk and are responsible to clean it up. But some of these risks or contaminations happened many years ago where legislation has changed.”

Peak says he hopes the soil development will help clean up brownfields — land previously used by large companies that is polluted by hazardous waste — and make the land useable.

Federated Co-op is set to test the cleanup solution on their fuel stations.

“Historically, the approach to clean up contaminated sites was to come in with a big yellow iron, excavate that material out, haul it out to somewhere else and dispose of it as a waste,” Kris Bradshaw, Co-op’s impacted sites manager, said.

Bradshaw says this new way of treating sites without tearing them apart is an advantage.

The federal government has given $750,000 to the soil research.

If the soil development is successful, it could save the government billions of dollars in remediation costs.

The research will be ongoing for the next three years and is projected to be tested on contaminated gas sites by next year.

Funding Opportunity: Ontario-Israel R&D Projects

The Canada-Israel Industrial R&D Foundation (CIIRDF) recently announced the launch of a new Call for Proposals (CFP) for the Ontario-Israel Collaboration Program (OICP).  Leveraging support from the Governments of Ontario and Israel, this CFP aims to stimulate R&D collaboration between firms in Ontario and Israel with a focus on the commercialization of new technologies.


Following a rigorous evaluation process, successful Ontario applicants are eligible to receive up to $300,000 CAD or up to 50% of the R&D costs of technology-based products and processes (whichever is less) from the Government of Ontario through CIIRDF to fund the Ontario portion of each project.  Successful Israeli applicants will receive funding from the Israel Innovation Authority to support the Israel portion of the project under the OICP.  The level of funding will be determined by the R&D Review Committee of the Israel Innovation Authority.


This CFP invites proposals with a non-defence application in all technology sectors from Ontario-based for-profit companies and Israel-based for-profit companies.  Special consideration will be given to projects in the following three areas: 1) Clean technologies, 2) Life sciences and medical devices, 3) Cyber security and other information and communication technologies.

Ontario firms have the opportunity to leverage academic expertise on their R&D project and engage students jointly with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)

Public sector organizations, such as universities and research institutions, are eligible to participate in R&D projects as subcontractors or consultants (not applicants)

Apply Now

For information on application guidelines, process, templates and proposal evaluation, please visit:

The summary proposal deadline is June 15, 2017 and the full Proposal Deadline is July 24, 2017.

For additional information, please contact:



Responsible Energy receives ECA for Gasification Facility

Responsible Energy Inc. recently received all necessary Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECA’s) from Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to begin operating a Free Radical Gasification (FRG™) Demonstration Facility in Ontario.

Responsible Energy’s President and CEO, Gordon Fraser is quoted as saying, ‘This is the last missing piece of the puzzle needed for us to proceed with the final phase of commercializing our proven advanced thermal waste destruction technology.  After 8 years of development, which includes more than 25,000 hours of design, testing, trials, and operation, I extremely proud of everything our team has accomplished to date, while spending only 1/10th of the capital required by the competition.”

What is Free Radical Gasification (FRG™)?

Free Radical Gasification (FRG™) is a multi-patented technology that is able to economically protect the environment by destroying waste while at the same time provide an opportunity to produce a multiple of renewable resources. The secret of the FRG™ process is the precisely controlled generation of a >5,000oC conversion zone. At this temperature, similar to that of the sun, molecular bonds are broken apart creating two valuable commodities: a clean synthesis gas (syngas) and an inert granular aggregate

About Responsible Energy Inc.

Responsible Energy has created a proven waste destruction solution that enables the clean conversion of non-hazardous and hazardous solid and liquid waste into valuable commodities such as Electricity or Renewable Natural Gas.



BacTech Awarded OCE Grant in Support of Arsenic Research

BacTech Environmental Corporation (CSE: BAC, OTC Pink: BCCEF) recently announced that its joint application with Laurentian University to Ontario Centres of Excellence (“OCE”) has been approved for $75,000 through OCE’s Voucher for Innovation and Productivity II (“VIP II”), offered on behalf of the Province of Ontario.  These funds are to be leveraged against contributions from BacTech Environmental Corporation in the amounts of $37,500 cash and $37,500 in-kind.

“We are pleased to be part of a unique collaboration that we hope will lead to great advances in dealing with arsenic issues in mining. Given the amount of arsenic that is released globally through mining, both primary and artisanal, any advancements in this area should be welcomed”, said Ross Orr, President and CEO of BacTech.

The purpose of the funding is to test bioleaching against very high arsenic concentrates (+10%) that are becoming more prevalent, not only in Canada, but also in numerous South American countries. BacTech is interested in applying bioleaching as a process technology to treat high grade gold/arsenic concentrates being produced in Ponce Enriquez, Ecuador.  Presently, these concentrates are being sold overseas and include penalties for high levels of arsenic.  BacTech proposes a “made at home” solution whereby concentrates produced in Ponce Enrique will be processed locally using BacTech BACOX technology.  It is hoped that the introduction of a bioleach circuit would lead to lower levels of mercury use, as well as reduced discharges of arsenic into the local environment.

A 300-kg sample of arsenopyrite concentrate will be purchased shortly from the local flotation plants in Ponce Enriquez.  This material will then be shipped to Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada for 5-6 months of bioleach test work.  The results of the test work will form the basis of the plant design for the proposed bioleach plant.  Laurentian University partner, Dr. Nadia Mykytczuk, is thrilled to have the funding to advance the use of genomic tools and selective microbial culturing to help optimize the BACOX process.  The cultures, which are isolated from various mine sites, including Sudbury, Ontario, are going to be used in the trials.


“We are very pleased to be able to support this impressive company,” says Dr. Tom Corr, President and CEO of Ontario Centres of Excellence. “This is a technological approach with the potential for widespread application and the ability to solve a serious problem.”

This OCE funded project will not only help advance the Ecuador work, but will also help advance the technology and potential application for re-processing various mine wastes in Ontario and elsewhere.

BacTech Environmental Corporation holds the perpetual, exclusive, royalty-free rights to use the patented BACOX bioleaching technology for the reclamation of tailings and mining waste materials.  The Company continues to field enquiries globally with respect to additional opportunities for remediation, including licensing transactions for the technology.