After more than a year of public hearings, the federal government unveiled its new and improved environmental assessment legislation in February 2018 with much ado.

But the new rules — designed to restore public trust in Canada’s process for reviewing major projects — didn’t contain any details on what kinds of projects would trigger a review under the new legislation.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna skirted the issue, saying her ministry was still evaluating what kinds of activities would show up on a yet-to-be-released “project list” that was pending further consultation with Canadians.

But when pressed on the issue, McKenna told reporters she didn’t believe oilsands projects developed via in-situ methods should be included. McKenna reasoned that because Alberta already has a hard cap on emissions, future oilsands projects would be exempt from federal environmental review.

The implications of excluding new oilsands projects because of a provincial emissions cap (which is controversial) weren’t lost on Adam Scott, senior advisor with Oil Change International.

Unbelievable and unacceptable. @cathmckenna proposes exempting #tarsands in-situ projects from any federal environmental assessment because ‘Alberta has a hard cap on emissions’ #cdnpoli

— Adam Scott (@AdamScottEnv) February 8, 2018

“It’s just appalling,” Scott told DeSmog Canada in an interview. “There’s no other way to say it.”

Unlike the more familiar open-pit mines of the Alberta oilsands, in-situ projects extract the region’s viscous bitumen by injecting steam into the ground, which softens the oil that is then pumped to the surface.

In-situ development represents the future of the oilsands. Between 2016 and 2040, in-situ is expected to double in daily production reaching 2.9 million barrels per day.

And while the process is less visible than its open-pit counterpart, in-situ oilsands mining has greater greenhouse gas emissions and significant land disturbance that clashes with the rights of local Indigenous peoples.

NDP MP Linda Duncan said by not releasing the project list the federal government has left everyone in the dark.

Duncan, who serves as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development which is responsible for reviewing the new legislation, said in-situ projects were exempted from federal assessments under the previous Harper government during dramatic cuts to Canada’s environmental rules. The new proposed federal legislation, bill C-69, was meant to make the gutted rules more robust.

“Everybody agrees that this bill should not be finalized until everybody knows what the project list is,” Duncan told DeSmog Canada.

“Who is it going to apply to? It’s ridiculous that they didn’t have the consultations simultaneously. This is a really serious matter. One of the things that we heard from industry today was that they’re just fed up.”

In-situ projects expected to emit 65 megatonnes of emissions by 2030

In-situ projects don’t result in the same level of visual devastation as open-pit mining: there are no toxic tailings lakes or gargantuan trucks needed.

But they have their own set of significant impacts, which critics argue should fall under the purview of federal assessment.

For one, they emit far more greenhouse gases that mining on a per-barrel basis. A 2016 assessment by the Pembina Institute found the “emissions intensity” of in-situ is about 60 per cent higher than mining. That’s because natural gas is burned to create the steam used in the process, making it extremely emissions intensive.

By 2030, in-situ projects are expected to emit 65 megatonnes of emissions per year: almost equivalent to all passenger transport in the country.

Sharon Mascher, law professor at the University of Calgary and expert in environmental law, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that such climate impacts from in-situ projects warrant federal assessment.

“I would argue that the federal government has the constitutional power to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and they need to show some leadership if they’re going to purport to be acting in a way that’s consistent with their obligations under the Paris Agreement,” she said.

“They need to exercise that jurisdiction to make sure that over the long term Canada’s greenhouse gases are not increasing  but are decreasing and eventually reaching carbon neutrality.”

Alberta’s emissions cap allows for a 40 per cent expansion in emissions, up to 100 megatonnes. But that doesn’t include electricity cogeneration, oilsands that doens’t require steam extraction and new or expanded upgraders — which combine for another 15 megatonnes of emissions.

As noted in the recent collaborative report by Canada’s auditors general, Alberta is one of nine province and territories that doesn’t even have a 2030 emissions goal in place.

Mascher said the only way an exemption for new in-situ projects would make sense would be if the federal government conducted a strategic assessment of all existing legislative frameworks in order to provide assurance that new production fits within Paris Agreement obligations.

However, strategic assessments aren’t legislated — meaning they’re completely at the discretion of cabinet.

No environmental assessments for in-situ oilsands projects under the federal government’s new rules. @cathmckenna https://t.co/WjhonE2XgN

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 3, 2018

Without federal assessments, ‘there’s no credibility to the system at all’

Greenhouse gas emissions aren’t the only potential impact of in-situ projects.

As recently reported by DeSmog Canada, Fort McKay First Nation in northeast Alberta is currently fighting a proposed in-situ project that is feared to jeopardize a nearby sacred region.

Specific concerns include the introduction of linear disturbances like roads and cutlines — which can further endanger caribou — and constant water withdrawals.

“They’re massive water polluters with large impacts on land and endangered and threatened species like woodland caribou,” Scott said. “They obviously need to be part of any review. It’s just essential. Without that, there’s no credibility to the system at all. They need to be on the project list as a default.”

There’s growing interest by oilsands producers in the use of “solvents” for in-situ projects, which would greatly reduce the amount of natural gas required for extraction but have unknown impacts on groundwater quality.

Duncan emphasized it’s the primary responsibility of the federal government to address Indigenous rights.  In addition, she emphasized that only the federal government can regulate navigable waters, fisheries and trans-boundary waters.

Even though the previous environmental impact system implemented under Harper exempted in-situ projects, Duncan said it’s imperative that they be included in the project list.

“It’s still having a huge impact on the landbase that is by and large traditional Indigenous lands,” she said.

Committee required to review legislation without knowing what it will apply to

The proposed legislation is currently being reviewed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. After it’s approved, it’ll return to the House for third reading and eventually royal assent.

In late February, the Liberals introduction a “time allocation” motion over bill C-69 in the House of Commons, limiting debate to only two days before sending it off to the Liberal-stacked committee.

But Duncan said the committee process itself is also being fast-tracked, with limitations on hearing witnesses and proposed amendments.

In response, she gave notice of a motion to break up the bill for review and send sections to relevant committees: parts addressing the Canadian Energy Regulator to the Natural Resource committee and parts about navigable waters to the Transport committee.

Those calls were rebuffed.

Now, her committee has to review over 800 clauses by late April.

Some have speculated that the continued exemption for in-situ for Alberta is a subtle trick to ensure the emissions cap remains regardless of who wins the next provincial election.

Scott suggested that would be a “terrible strategy.”

“The Alberta cap is an ineffective way of dealing with climate impacts of oil and gas operations,” he said. “Exempting projects with the environmental impacts of in-situ tarsands projects really shows the impact system was broken entirely.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This article originally appeared on the Pembina Institute website. This is part 2 of a series on the last 50 years of the oilsands industry. Read part 1 here.

The sheer size and scope of Alberta’s some 20 oilsands tailings ponds is unprecedented for any industry in the world.

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, one of these ponds — the Mildred Lake Settling Basin — is the world’s largest dam by volume of construction material.

Since oilsands mining operations started in 1967, 1.3 trillion litres of fluid tailings has accumulated in these open ponds on the Northern Alberta landscape. This is enough toxic waste to fill 400,000 Olympic swimming pools.

Unlike tailings produced from conventional hard rock mining, the solids in oilsands tailings will take centuries to settle to the bottom of the ponds. As a result, it is impossible to dewater the waste for timely reclamation without significant intervention.

This problem was recognized as early as 1973 by the Government of Alberta, which identified oilsands tailings as untreatable with existing technologies.

The government recognized that the “continuous accumulation of liquid tailings” was not acceptable and that the ponds must be “restricted in their size, location and duration of use.”

Unfortunately, that is not what happened.

For the next five decades, industry pushed its tailings problem into the future with promises that forthcoming technologies would emerge to deal with them. As the years passed and tailings continued to grow, both industry and government assured Albertans that a silver-bullet technology was just one lab discovery away.

In 2010 Suncor’s CEO Rick George announced “massive change” on the tailings front, which would soon reduce Suncor’s ponds from eight to one. In 2013, Premier Alison Redford declared that tailings ponds would “disappear from Alberta’s landscape in the very near future.”

These promises were never met, however, and today the tailings problem is worse than ever.

According to new plans currently under review by the Alberta Energy Regulator, industry is proposing to let tailings continue to accumulate until 2037 when there will be over 1.5 trillion litres. That will equate to seven decades — from 1967 to 2037 — of industry seeking a technological solution and failing to meaningfully address this massive environmental problem.

Figure 1. Fluid tailing ponds volume growth since 1968

With tailings ponds continuing to grow on the landscape, the risk of failure poses an ever-increasing risk to communities, the environment, and taxpayers.

Moreover, should the oilsands mining industry not survive accelerating global transitions toward decarbonized energy systems, Albertans must be protected from being left behind to foot the bill for enormous clean-up costs.

The Problem of Alberta’s Growing #Oilsands #TailingsPonds is Worse Than Ever https://t.co/nwszGniwa0 @Pembina #ableg #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 23, 2017

However, less than 8 per cent of these costs is held as security by the province, leaving Albertan taxpayers exposed to a significant financial risk for tens of billions of dollars if major companies are no longer around when it’s finally time to reclaim these sites.

Looking at these grim facts, it’s worth asking: when will we as Albertans say enough is enough? Companies have kicked the can down the road on cleaning up their tailings for five decades now, but industry’s own forecasts indicate that the worst is still yet to come.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This article originally appeared on the Pembina Institute website.

Over the past 50 years, the development of the oilsands has changed the face of Alberta, driving innovation and technology to make oilsands a reality. The oilsands are the third largest oil reserve on earth, and despite a cycle of boom and busts, contribute to the prosperity of the province. Industry, however, has not addressed many of the largest environmental impacts generated by the oilsands, and much work is still left to be done. This blog is part of a series where we look back at the last 50 years of the oilsands industry and shed light on a number of the remaining challenges.

After 50 years of production, the oilsands remain among the world’s most carbon intensive large-scale crude oil operations. Studies continue to back this up.

The Carnegie Endowment’s Oil-Climate Index suggests most oilsands crude is associated with 31 per cent more emissions than the average North-American crude from the point of extraction through its lifecycle to the point of end use (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Emissions associated with the full lifecycle of a crude (from extraction to combustion) for a selection of crudes produced in North America

When looking at the carbon pollution associated with the extraction and processing, the Oil-Climate Index suggests that the oilsands generate 2.2 times as many emissions per barrel than the average crude extracted in North America (See Figure 2).

Figure 2. Emissions associated with the extraction and processing for a selection of crudes produced in North America

The latest data on carbon emissions associated solely with oilsands extraction indicate little improvement over time. Industry likes to celebrate the changes it implemented to reduce emissions and waste, but the greatest of those were one-off advances in emissions intensity nearly 20 years ago.

Since then, the emission intensity from oilsands extraction increased nine per cent between 2004 and 2015, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Emissions intensity of oilsands extraction between 2004 and 2015

In short, the emission intensity of mining operations increased by seven per cent  between 2004 and 2015, and this trend will certainly continue as producers access deeper, lower quality bitumen and the distance from mines to processing facilities increases.

Although in situ operations’ emission intensity decreased by eight per cent between 2004 and 2015, this production type still produces 58 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than surface mining. Because in situ has become the dominant form of extraction and has a higher intensity than mining, the overall emissions intensity of the sector continues to grow.

Data sources

• Emission intensities from North-American crudes are sourced from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Oil-Climate Index, “Viewing total emissions,” 2016.
• Greenhouse gas emissions are sourced from Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Inventory Report 1990-2015: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada,  Table A10–2, 2017.
• Bitumen production is sourced from Alberta Environment and Parks, Oil Sands Information Portal, “Total Oil Sands Production Graph.”

Alberta #Oilsands Most Carbon Intensive Crude in North America: Analysis https://t.co/KhIJqElvt8 via @Pembina @ben_yyc #emissions #ableg

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 16, 2017

Image: Alberta oilsands. Photo: Kris Krug

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It’s easy to assume the plummet in energy prices will be a boon for the fight against climate change as emissions-intensive oilsands projects are cancelled or put on hold, but experts say that will only be the case if we learn some lessons from the current downturn.

Here are the four key factors that will determine whether Canada cuts emissions during this downturn or simply moves from “heroin to methadone,” as one expert puts it.

1. Cutting oilsands emissions

Suncor, one of the biggest players in the oilsands, recently announced that it expects its emissions to increase by 28 per cent within five years.

To be sure, oilsands production — which the Pembina Institute dubs as the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada — is certainly suffering as of late: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers slashed 1.1 million barrels/day from its 2030 projection, while Goldman Sachs forecasts that conventional crude prices won’t breach $50/barrel for a decade-and-a-half.

And as Bloomberg reports, oilsands producers require $60/barrel to build a new in-situ project and $100/barrel for a new mining project (which helps explain why oilsands operations accounted for three-quarters of the barrels Goldman cut from its prediction).

But Amin Asadollahi, oilsands program director at Pembina, says the challenge of meeting national emissions targets (611 Mt in 2020 and 515 Mt by 2030) will remain unless the sector is “decarbonized” with the implementation of emissions-intensity improvements (vacuum insulated tubing or flow control devices for in-situ sites).

Despite cuts to projections, the sector is still anticipated to grow by close to one million barrels by 2030 (and many megatonnes of emissions with it).

Even though the per-barrel emissions have declined by close to one-third between 1990 and 2013, the overall increase in oilsands production pretty much cancels out those reductions.

Allan Fogwill, president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), says technological innovations such as using solvents instead of water for heating bitumen prior to extraction could dramatically reduce emissions over the next 35 years, with the caveat that CERI hasn’t yet explored how many of those technologies are economically feasible.

“There’s a significant amount of opportunity to reduce emissions in the oilsands and maintain or in fact increase production,” Fogwill says.

1. Cleaning up transport

While emissions from the industry will likely be cut due a temporary drop in oilsands-related emissions, pollution from other sectors — transportation, most notably — may neutralize such gains given that car usage increases with lower gasoline prices, which also boosts sales of vehicles like SUVs and Hummers.

But Anthony Perl, director of the urban studies program at Simon Fraser University (SFU), notes that record-low interest rates may be improperly harnessed to construct or repair car-centric infrastructure such as bridges or highways, pointing to the replacement of Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel as an example.

Perl, who co-authored Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight Without Oil, calls for the “future proofing” of such investments, which would require looking 50 or 60 years in the future and anticipating technologies like shared or autonomous vehicles, electric buses and better rail systems while avoiding investments in “stranded assets” like new highways, airport runway expansions and coal port infrastructure.

After all, Canada has committed to become a “post-carbon” society by 2100, which will require an array of new infrastructure.

Perl says: “Right now, that investment is not going into the oil infrastructure — which is not a bad thing — but it’s also not going into the alternative infrastructure because people say ‘oh well, that’s expensive and oil is cheap so let’s just party on.’ This would be the time for real leadership to factor the cost of future energy and collect the money that’s needed to build that green infrastructure going forward. But that requires policy leadership: some places have more of that than others, let’s say.”

Perl argues transport projects like Vancouver’s massive Port Mann Bridge will depreciate over time, unlike green infrastructure like rail and other forms of public transit projects.

1. Making energy renewable

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has frequently taken credit for a two per cent decline in emissions between 2006 (when the Conservatives first assumed leadership) and 2013.

However, the only two years emissions dropped were in 2008 and 2009, during the worst portions of the Great Recession, and have increased since (commentators have noted the brief decline may have been entirely neutralized if Ontario hadn’t phased out coal-fired power).

The United States experienced a similar recession-led trend with a 9.9 per cent drop in emissions between 2007 and 2009. But while the replacement of coal-fired power plants with natural gas for electricity generation has historically been credited for the decline, a Nature Communications study published in July found that per-capita consumption played a far larger role.

Klaus Hubacek, an ecological economist at the University of Maryland and co-author of the study, says that he and the three other writers have since re-analyzed the data, breaking the “fuel mix” segment into individual parts to find out which source of electricity generation contributed most to the decline in emissions.

One of the biggest findings they’ve encountered, Hubacek says, is that renewables accounted for far more of the emissions decline than originally thought and that the rise of natural gas may have actually crowded out the growth of renewables.

“If you translate it into CO2 emissions then you see renewables has a much more important role, as renewables have low CO2 emissions — almost zero — versus gas which has some CO2 emissions,” he says.

A March 2015 report published by Sustainable Canada Dialogues predicted that Canada could achieve 100 per cent low-carbon electricity generation by 2035, which would result in significant emissions reductions. A Clean Energy Canada study noted investments in renewables rose by 88 per cent in 2014, but that the federal government needs to do far more to promote the sector that it currently is.

1. Pricing carbon

The very first policy recommendation listed by the Sustainable Canada Dialogues report, which featured contributions from 60 scholars, was the adoption of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program. It’s an idea that Pembina’s Asadollahi and SFU’s Perl both support.

In a recent poll conducted by EKOS Research on behalf of Pembina, it was found that half of Albertans would also support an economy-wide carbon tax (in contrast to the levy the province currently features, which only taxes large emitters).

“Part of the reason oilsands emissions are high is because of high energy use,” Asadollahi says. “When you price carbon, it will automatically incentivize more efficient and more lean management and practices, making operations become more competitive.”

Perl adds that now is the time to be deploying such mechanisms, suggests politicians should take the ongoing oil price plunge as a lesson, one that shows we need to consider more moving parts — from carbon pricing to alternative infrastructure projects to renewable technology — to plan ahead.

Similarly, economist Margaret Walls argued in an April article for the Wall Street Journal that now’s the time for such action as “a carbon tax might help to avert some capital investment decisions that would lock in higher emissions.”

“The volatility is becoming greater,” Perl says. “If you think of it in relative terms, the spiking of oil prices and then the collapse of oil prices is a sign to me that the system is becoming less sustainable. We should expect that to continue. Right now, even if we don’t do anything else for sustainable development in the future, we’re laying the groundwork inadvertently for an even bigger spike the next time.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has adamantly refused the option. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau have both committed to emissions regulations.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is the first instalment of a three-part series on Dr. John O’Connor, the family physician to first identify higher-than-average cancer rates and rare forms of cancer in communities downstream of the Alberta oilsands. Read Part 2 and Part 3.

The day John O’Connor landed in Canada from his native Ireland,* he had no idea how much he would end up giving to this land, nor how much it would ultimately demand from him.

“I had no intention of staying in Canada,” he told DeSmog Canada in a recent interview. “The intention was to go back.”

“But I got enchanted with Canada.”

That was back in 1984 when O’Connor first arrived in Canada for a three-month locum.

With a large family practice already well established in Scotland, O’Connor had no real intention of settling in this foreign land where, in a few decades, he would find himself embroiled in a national conflict — a conflict that would pick at so many of our country’s deepest-running wounds involving oil, First Nations and the winners and losers of our resource race.

No, when O’Connor landed in Canada he was just planning to fill a temporary family physician position in Nova Scotia. Soon after his arrival, however, his light curiosity about Canada transformed into a newfound passion. He was hooked.

“It was just a perfect match for me.”

After nearly a decade, O’Connor decided a shift to Alberta made sense for him and his growing family. He travelled there in search of what so many still do: opportunity.

“The kids were getting to the point where I realized I would probably like to look at opportunities in terms of careers that may not have been available in the Maritimes. So I came out to Alberta in 1993.”

O’Connor landed in Edmonton, rented a car and explored four practices with openings for new physicians.

“Fort McMurray was the last destination, and it looked the most attractive of all of the options,” he said.

Back in ’93 Fort McMurray was an entirely different place. With a population of around 30,000 people, the community was far from a boom town. It was under-doctored, said O’Connor, and extremely friendly. Within a few weeks, the O’Connor family made friends with patients who had kids of a similar age. They joined sports teams and attended good schools.

“It was good. Don’t regret it for a second,” O’Connor said.

New beginnings

At the time, the oilsands were hardly a topic of conversation, O’Connor remembers.

“You could certainly see what was being emitted from the smokestacks in the distance,” he said. Once, O’Connor even drove toward the smoke, trying to catch a glimpse of the source, but he never spent much time thinking about it.

Emissions rise from industrial facilities in the oilsands region. Photo: Kris Krug

Many of his patients were working in the oilsands.

“I would listen to their descriptions of work and everything else. And it was fascinating, but I really didn’t have time and probably not, at that point, the interest in knowing more about it,” he said.

In 1998, O’Connor travelled out to Fort MacKay, home of the Fort MacKay First Nation, for the first time.

A road sign directs traffic to Syncrude operations and the community of Fort MacKay along the main highway in Fort McMurray. Photo: Kris Krug

“It was an eye-opener,” he said, “realizing how close the community was to development. How much the community depended on the tar sands.”

When he first arrived the medical centre was no more than two double-wide trailers pulled together. Within two or three years, the band had built an impressive new centre for the community.

“[There was] obviously a very important connection between the community of Fort MacKay and industry for socio-economic reasons,” O’Connor came to recognize.

It was the dawn of a new era for the region, O’Connor said. Things started to get busier.

“This was the beginning of the two or three booms that we’ve seen over the last about 14 years or so. Just to be there as an observer of this and not directly dependent on the mystery…” he said of the oilsands boom.

“But realizing its importance, that it was a…” O’Connor trailed off with a sigh.

He picked up again: “I’m going to write a book on this.”

“My wife has grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and said, ‘Do it,’” he laughed.

“We’ve talked about it for a few years and that early time that I’m trying to describe to you, it was fascinating and very important for what came later.”

Dawn of a new oilsands era

The ’90s were a transformative time for the Alberta oilsands. New advancements in technology improved the economic prospects of extracting and processing the resource and led to an ambitious industry and government strategy to dramatically increase production in 1995.

Highway 63, also known as the “Highway of Death” for its dangerous and busy conditions, runs through Fort McMurray. Photo: Kris Krug

As a part of this new strategy the Canadian and Albertan governments dropped royalty and tax rates in an effort to generate interest in the resource.

What’s contained in the tarry sands of northern Alberta is a heavy hydrocarbon called bitumen. As industry describes it, unprocessed bitumen has the consistency of “peanut butter” and, as a result, requires tremendous amounts of energy to extract, process and upgrade into lighter fuels.

Before the technology existed to essentially melt the bitumen out of the sands, oil companies expressed little interest in the region.

But all that changed with new methods for extraction and upgrading and some of the lowest royalties and taxes in the world.

By 1995, Alberta announced a new goal of producing one million barrels a day from the oilsands by 2020. They passed that goal 16 years early in 2004. Plans now involve producing up to 5 million barrels a day by 2030.

Retired machinery forms part of a roadside display along the ‘Syncrude Loop’ in Fort McMurray. Photo: Kris Krug

While these transformations took place, O’Connor’s business steadily grew, as did the need for him in downstream and local communities, especially First Nation communities.

O’Connor began to see the oilsands at this time as a “two-edged sword.”

“Couldn’t possibly live without it,” he said, “but at the same time, having to contend with the fact — no doubt — about the impact; the adverse impact on environment and life in general.”

O’Connor said that in those early years the impact of development wasn’t yet visible, but by the early 2000s things started to change.

Read Part 2: Deformed Fish, Dying Muskrats Cause Doctor to Sound Alarm. Read Part 3: The Spotlight Turns on Fort Chip Doctor.

*Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated O’Connor was from Scotland. Image Credit: In 2011 author Carol Linnitt travelled to the oilsands region and Fort Chipewyan with photographer Kris Krug. All photos by Kris Krug.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Alberta Energy Minister Diana McQueen toured key U.S. cities this week in an effort to gain the interests of major oil refiners and producers before an auction Wednesday will see the sale of 1,300 acres of new oil and gas leases. The leases overlap 650 acres of critical boreal caribou habitat as well as mountain caribou ranges. 

Caribou is an endangered species in the province, with a long history of being placed second to the province’s oil and gas priorities. Last week Alberta put 1,235 acres of mountain caribou range up for auction despite a recent Environment Canada report that called for the restoration of the region given the threat of local herds disappearing.

Both Alberta and the Government of Canada have consistently failed to stem the rapid decline of the province’s endangered caribou, a species now protected under the federal Species at Risk Act. An Environment Canada recovery plan, released in 2012, advanced habitat protection as one of the only means available to protect the vanishing species.

According to Carolyn Campbell conservation specialist at the Alberta Wilderness Association adequate habitat protection measures have yet to be put into place while oil and gas development continues to dramatically outpace conservation efforts.

“New leasing in caribou range should halt,” she said, “until there are real rules to prevent new footprint and restore old footprint.”

Although new project-level guidelines require industry to at times delay or coordinate new projects that will impact habitat, Campbell says the rules “still allow for a lot of harmful footprint.”

Both Alberta Energy and Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) were asked about the leasing of land in caribou habitat but were unable to provide comment by the time of publication. 

Caribou are naturally timid creatures, their grazing and mating patterns easily disturbed by human and industrial activities. The rapid expansion of Alberta’s oilsands, including open-pit mines and infrastructure-heavy in situ extraction, as well as far-reaching oil and gas exploration in the region including the creation of seismic lines cut through large portions of the boreal forest, has dramatically reduced safe caribou habitat in which herds can persist at healthy levels.

Oil and gas industry activity in caribou ranges. Map by Global Forest Watch.

According to Campbell, the linear footprint caused by seismic lines and other surface disturbance “stimulates populations of deer, moose and predators” and “provides easy access for predators to reach caribou.” But the overwhelming scientific evidence, she said, “is that loss of habitat is the ultimate cause of caribou population declines.”

In 2011 the Canadian government released a draft recovery strategy that was heavily criticized for recommending a province-wide wolf cull as a means of supporting flagging caribou populations without addressing habitat loss. The plan drew wide-ranging condemnation from the scientific and environmental communities as well as First Nations who held industrial development was to blame for caribou declines, not the province’s wolves.

An independent study later confirmed Alberta’s wolves eat very little caribou and sustain themselves on a diet of deer, moose and elk. Although the fragmentation and disturbance of caribou habitat put caribou and wolves in closer quarters. 

"Caribou and wolves have co-existed over thousands of years,” Campbell said, “but too much human footprint robs the caribou of their ability to minimize overlap with wolves.”

In late 2012, five years after it was due, Environment Canada released a revised recovery strategy that called the oil and gas industry and the government of Alberta to work together to ensure at least 65 per cent of caribou habitat remain undisturbed to ensure caribou survival.

Critics were quick to point out the federal recovery strategy did not outline how Alberta should implement the 65 per cent strategy, leaving the plan largely undefined. Since then industry in Alberta has continued to operate mostly unimpeded, putting the caribou on a “collision course” with oil and gas interests, as Simon Dyer from the Pembina Institute put it at the time.

“The provincial government has previously not followed it scientists’ recommendations, nor even multi-sector groups’ recommendations, to temporarily stop leasing and logging until range plans are developed that focus on habitat recovery,” Campbell said. 

Mountain caribou populations have declined by more than 60 per cent since 2002. Boreal herds are in a similarly precarious state. In 2011 the Canadian government placed 70 per cent of Alberta’s boreal woodland caribou herds in or on the border of a ‘not self-sustaining’ category.

Although caribou declines have been tracked by scientists and conservationists for decades, the province’s emphasis on oil and gas development, coupled with loose and undefined recovery plans, has left the species struggling. And according to Campbell, this could have wide-reaching consequences for the surrounding ecosystem, even across provincial boundaries.

“If you look at the attached Environment Canada map (above) of boreal woodland caribou across Canada, it’s Alberta where most of the herds are at highest risk of dying out under current policies. This affects the genetic diversity and viability of neighbouring B.C., the North West Territories and Saskatchewan caribou populations. 

Beyond that, caribou are indicators of whether the boreal and foothills forests are healthy. If we change how these forests are managed so that caribou populations can recover (which Alberta states is its policy goal), then our northern Mackenzie watershed will be healthier, and many other species will benefit too, such as migratory birds that depend on old growth forest and intact wetlands.” 

Under Canada’s new caribou recovery strategy Alberta is legally required to develop plans to preserve and restore caribou ranges within five years. The province has yet to demonstrate how these plans will move forward in the face of new energy leases and land sales.

Although some basic changes could make a bit difference, Campbell said.

“In 2012, in response to thousands of Canadians speaking up for a strong boreal caribou recovery strategy, the federal government did strengthen the strategy to be more habitat-focused. Second, to its credit, in 2013 the Alberta government stopped new energy leasing in two west central Alberta caribou ranges and deferred some logging in one of those ranges until range plans are developed for those caribou.

This is a start, and it shows how important it is for citizens to get involved.”

But, she added, these efforts need to be backed up by “real rules to reduce footprint” which might mean a “re-thinking of forestry and energy.” Ultimately, resource managers are going to have to work together to more responsibly manage industry impacts and reduce disturbance to caribou habitat, she said.

Image Credit: Zak Richter/NPS via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A total of $1.1 trillion USD earmarked for risky carbon-intensive oil sector investments need to be challenged by investors, according to a new report released today by the Carbon Tracker Initiative.

The research identifies oil reserves in the Arctic, oilsands and in deepwater deposits at the high end of the carbon/capital cost curve. Projects in this category “make neither economic nor climate sense” and won’t fit into a carbon-constrained world looking to limit oil-related emissions, Carbon Tracker states in a press release.

The report highlights the high risk of Alberta oilsands investment, noting the reserves “remain the prime candidate for avoiding high cost projects” due to the region’s landlocked position and limited access to market.

“The isolated nature of the [oilsands] market with uncertainty over export routes and cost inflation brings risk.”

Oilsands major Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), the company responsible for the mysterious series of leaks at the Cold Lake oilsands deposit, has the largest total exposure to high-cost and high-risk oil investments, valued at a potential of more than $38 billion between now and 2025.

Production forecasts, the basis of capital investment decisions, often rely on business-as-usual assumptions of economic growth and energy demand. But given potential changes in cost, fossil fuel consumption and emission constraints, industry demand projections may need to be reconsidered.

The report’s authors recommend such projections be “stress-tested” for a variety of future scenarios.

Recent efforts by socially responsible investment firms, such as Trillium Asset Management, to limit environmentally egregious investments, as well as the growing divestment movement throw the future of especially expensive and carbon-intensive oil reserves like the Alberta oilsands into question. They face the very likely potential of becoming “stranded assets.”

Previous Carbon Tracker research suggests about two-thirds of the world's proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain in the ground if international targets to remain under a 2 C temperature rise are to be met.

“For the first time, this report bridges the worlds of oil project economics — in terms of both the marginal cost of supply — and carbon, allowing investors to gauge where risk lies, given a range of demand scenarios,” Mark Fulton, adviser to Carbon Tracker Initiative and a former Head of Research at Deutsche Bank Climate Advisors, said.

“It makes it clear that investors have reason to engage companies on many high-cost and high-carbon-content projects.”

The report recommends investors identify companies investing the majority of their capital in high-cost projects, set thresholds for investor exposure and demand greater transparency and disclosure from industry.

The seven global “majors,” which include BP, Chevron, Shell, Exxon Mobil, Total, ConocoPhillips and Eni, represent the bulk of potential oil production and have high exposure to deposits in expensive locations with expensive-to-produce oil types, such as bitumen from the Alberta oilsands.

Several oil companies have taken steps to address their carbon investment risk. Most notably, Exxon Mobil recently announced they will begin reporting more fully on risky carbon assets in response to investor pressure.

Around $21 trillion of potential capital expenditure would need to be invested by the oil sector in high-risk projects by 2050 to keep the industry afloat, according to the report. But this investment “would not pay for itself in a world where demand is lower and that continues to take climate change and air quality seriously.”

“Many investors are concerned about the growing amount of capital that the oil companies have thrown at low-return, carbon-heavy projects,” Paul Spedding, a former-HSBC Oil & Gas Sector Analyst, said.

Major oil companies need to change their strategy, he added.

“As this report shows, returns are falling and costs are rising. To reverse this, a greater focus is needed on higher return, lower cost assets. If this means lower capital investment and higher dividends or buybacks, so much the better. This analysis is important as it provides the data investors need to challenge proposed investments on the basis of returns as well as carbon content.”

Image Credit: All images courtesy of Carbon Tracker Initiative.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

If the pipeline giant Enbridge Inc. is content to cower behind a 20-something blog manager rather than acknowledge its role in the recent attack on the patriotism of Canadian environmentalists, what hope have we that the company would ever stand accountable for the accidents that will occur – inevitably – if Northern Gateway ever gets built?

That’s a rhetorical question, but a pressing one, given the environmental time-bomb that Enbridge proposes to lay out between the Canadian tar sands and the pristine B.C. coastline.

We actually don’t know for sure that Enbridge is behind the so-called Ethical Oil Institute, a phony grassroots organization that was established by Ezra Levant and run for most of its first year by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s current Director of Planning, Alykhan Velshi. But you might come to your own conclusions by watching this clip or reading the transcript below.

It comes from an interview on the CBC show Power and Politics, in which the host, Evan Solomon, asks current EthicalOil.org manager Kathryn Marshall a question she just can’t bring herself to answer:

Solomon: Some have said that Enbridge, which is building the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, is a funder of Ethical Oil and that they’re using your group to disempower environmentalists that oppose this. Does Enbridge support or give your organization money?

Marshall: Look, we’re a small grassroots advocacy organization. This is about foreign special interests and their puppet groups who are trying to hijack a Canadian process. … This isn’t about our money, this is about foreign special interests who are trying to hijack the process.

We don’t take any foreign money. We take no foreign money. We are 100 per cent Canadian.

Solomon: Are you taking money from Enbridge?

Marshall: We’re a small grassroots organization. Our average donor is a regular hard-working Canadian who gives us 20 or 30 dollars through our website.

Solomon: I am not trying to disparage your donors. I’m trying to understand if the company that is building the pipeline is also funding you. If we’re talking about who is funding and the influence of that, I think it’s fair to be transparent about that.

Marshall: This is about foreign influence. EthicalOil.org is 100 per cent Canadian. Let’s talk about foreign money.”

[Minutes later, the host asks again.]

Solomon: You keep calling these other groups puppet groups. People will ask, are you a puppet group of Enbridge? Let me ask you again. Does Enbridge fund you to have a campaign against these other groups? Does Enbridge give your organization money?

Marshall: Look Evan, I am not going to respond to conspiracy theories, we are a small grassroots organization.  (Garbled by interruptions)

Solomon: Just to be fair. It’s not a conspiracy theory. If they don’t give you money, you could say they don’t. If they do, fine.

Marshall: I don’t respond to conspiracy theories. But look, this is about foreign interests trying to hijack a Canadian process.

Solomon: Ok, I can’t get an answer. I don’t know why that’s a conspiratorial question. If Enbridge funds Ethical Oil, I’d love to know.

Is this the kind of transparency that would give you confidence in how Enbridge might account for itself in the wake of an out-of-sight oil spill?

For that matter, do Marshall’s well-rehearsed talking points even make sense? The portion of income that any large Canadian environmental groups receive from foreign sources seldom changes – and seldom tops about 10 per cent. Yet Enbridge, which reports more than double that level of foreign ownership (23%) appears to be accusing others of having “special interests” or “foreign influence.”

Here you have a PR person who is prepared to embarrass herself, painfully and repeatedly on national TV rather than answer a simple question about Enbridge funding. We have a $5.5-billion project that has already attracted huge offshore support; we have a tar sand scar across northern Alberta that is increasingly owned by Chinese buyers (who really want this pipeline). And yet everyone from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to this hapless PR professional is saying it’s the Canadian environmental community that is somehow biased by its diversity of support.

Does this conform to your definition of “ethical”?

Take one more moment to think about what Enbridge is proposing. Northern Gateway would stretch 1,172 kilometres through some of the last untouched temperate rainforest in the world. Bearing in mind that Enbridge pipelines have leaked a recorded 132,000 barrels of hydrocarbons in 610 recorded spills between 1999 and 2008, are we convinced that Enbridge would account for every “little oops” that occurs deep in the BC wilderness? Or, after this incident, do you think they might rather hire Kathryn Marshall to tell us that she had no personal evidence of any spill – and that anyone who says different is probably being put up to it by foreigners?

Worse, what would Enbridge or their PR team say when the first oil tanker does an Exxon Valdez in Hecate Strait?

This whole Ethical Oil dodge is just one more reason to slam the door on this whole project.

Image credit: Henrik Lehnerer | Shutterstock

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.