A new technology has the potential to transform the transportation of tars sands oil. Right now, the already thick and slow-flowing oil, known as bitumen, has to be diluted with a super-light petroleum product, usually natural gas condensate, in order for it to flow through a pipeline or into a rail tank car.

However, scientists at the University of Calgary’s Schulich School of Engineering inadvertently found a way to make tar sands oil even more viscous, turning it into “self-sealing pellets” that could potentially simplify its transport.

“We’ve taken heavy oil, or bitumen, either one, and we’ve discovered a process to convert them rapidly and reproducibly into pellets,” Ian Gates, the professor leading the research, told CBC News in September 2017.

Based on the initial description of this product, it appears that it could alleviate many of the risks involved with moving tar sands oil by rail. The research teams says this product floats in water, does not pose a fire and explosion risk like the diluted bitumen currently moved in rail tank cars, and would eliminate air quality issues related to the volatile components of diluted bitumen.

If true, this technology would appear to reduce potential risks to people and the environment, in comparison with moving diluted bitumen by rail or in pipelines.

Gates also suggests that the solidified bitumen can be moved in the type of open rail cars used for coal. That would be welcome news to railroads, which have been losing business transporting coal as demand has dwindled. Gates did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this article.

Canadian National Working to Commercialize Similar Technology

Meanwhile, similar research and development has been happening not within the Canadian oil industry, but instead, a Canadian railroad, which has patented another method of solidifying tar sands for transport.

Canadian National Railway (CN) holds a patent for a technology dubbed CanaPux, in an apparent reference to the hockey puck-like product under development. CN’s CanaPux website provides details about the product’s potential, and describes the technology in the following way:

“Heavy crude oil (bitumen) is combined with polymers, a form of recyclable plastic that both thickens the crude oil into a solid shape and encases it with a protective shell. The pellets move best in open topped gondola railcars, similar to how we move coal.”

CN also makes claims about the pucks being a safer and more environmentally friendly way of moving bitumen:

“The pellet is not flammable or explosive, will float in water and nothing can leach or dissolve into the environment. It does not create dust.”

Perhaps the most attractive part of this technology would be if cleaning up a “spill” of CanaPux pellets were as easy as CN’s website purports:

“They will simply need to be picked up. That could be done by hand, with construction equipment, nets, booms or vacuums.”

Still, CN makes clear that the company remains in the early stages of developing CanaPux and has not yet confirmed many of its expectations about how the product would act in the environment.

“We want to do the studies that will prove that it will float in fresh water, salt water, how it behaves in cold and in heat,” Janet Drysdale, vice president of corporate development at CN, told The Globe and Mail in February 2017. “All of that will be validated with additional lab work.”

While CN confirmed that the CanuPux technology was separate from the work at Schulich School of Engineering, CN would not offer further comment on the status of the CanuPux technology.

Exports Without Opposition?

When Washington Governor Jay Inslee rejected a permit for the largest proposed oil-by-rail facility in America last month, the decision effectively shut down the oil-by-rail industry’s major expansion plans for the U.S. West Coast. However, Canadian oil-by-rail volumes are currently increasing and an even higher volume of tar sands oil is expected to be moved this way. Without these new American destinations for diluted bitumen transported by rail, the options for Canadian oil producers have been limited further.

If all of CN’s claims pan out, moving bitumen in solid form could address many of the concerns voiced by activists who oppose oil-by-rail transport. The risk of an explosive “bomb train” event would be eliminated. Air pollution concerns from vaporizing diluted bitumen also would no longer be an issue. Spills of Canadian oil into waterways, which happened when two oil trains derailed in Gogama, Ontario, should have a much smaller environmental impact.

And CN is banking on these differences to help oil producers get their product to ports where it can be exported. The Globe and Mail reported that “the technology could give oil-sands producers who lack pipeline access a new way to reach refineries in North America, Asia, and other overseas markets.”

There is another potential advantage to the technology. According to a post on the website of Canadian oil pipeline company Enbridge, “CN hopes that the transformation will make the product exempt from Canada’s tanker ban on British Columbia’s North Coast.” This sentiment was repeated in an article in Oil Sands Magazine: “The solid pellets are also likely to be exempted from the federal Liberal’s crude tanker moratorium off BC’s northern coast, although Transport Minister Marc Garneau says more testing is needed to confirm the consequences of a spill.”

What is unknown at this point is how this pelleted product would be classified and regulated. If it is a solid non-toxic product, will new environmental impact studies be required for ports that want to host tar sands export facilities? Will cities like South Portland, Maine, which have passed a local ordinance banning the “loading of crude oil” at its port to prevent tar sands oil exports, have any say over this new product?

Another question is whether this technology will give new life to projects like a proposed railway from Alberta to Alaska, which would connect to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and be constructed solely to export tar sands oil.

‘Keep It In The Ground’ as Last Line of Defense

CN is on the record saying it does not expect this technology to replace pipelines and that CanaPux represents just one more option for oil producers to reach foreign markets. While Canada does not have enough rail capacity to move all of the bitumen it is producing, the country’s current issues with pipeline capacity are forcing more companies to choose rail to transport diluted bitumen, lending additional appeal for shipping tar sands oil in pellet form.

If the CanaPux technology pans out and delivers on CN’s promises, it would appear to be a vast improvement in the tar sands-by-rail industry on multiple fronts, namely, the safety of communities along the train tracks and the reduced environmental impacts from derailments. These advantages are real. The U.S. has yet to address either the dangers posed by explosive oils moved by rail or a loophole granting a free pass on spill response planning for oil trains. Proposed regulations to address this loophole are stalled within the Trump administration.

For climate activists, however, the biggest argument against new oil-by-rail facilities has always been the need to “keep it in the ground,” that is, not developing certain fossil fuel reserves in order to prevent harmful globe-warming emissions. This argument remains as scientists, including former NASA scientist James Hansen, have said that if the majority of Canada’s tar sands oil reserves do not remain undeveloped, efforts at limiting catastrophic climate change may become impossible.

Canadian oil and rail companies clearly don’t share this opinion. And neither does Canada’s political leadership. In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the country has no intention of leaving its enormous reserves of tar sands oil in the ground, and more recently, he promised to make sure the new Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline would be completed.

If CN or others can effectively commercialize this tar sands-to-pellet technology, it looks like a win for the oil industry and another channel for Canada to sell to the rest of the world an oil that is 17–21 percent dirtier in carbon pollution. Despite providing some real safety benefits in the short-term, this technology does nothing to address the bigger issue of limiting dangerous global climate change.

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.

The Chippewas of the Thames First Nation have launched a legal challenge against the National Energy Board’s (NEB) decision to approve Enbridge’s Line 9 oil pipeline project in southern Ontario and southern Quebec. The NEB – Canada’s independent energy regulator – approved the project to ship 300,000 barrels a day of oil and oilsands bitumen last month with soft conditions.

“This 40-year old pipe is subject to corrosion and heavy crude is going to be shipped through in higher volumes. We feel that this raises the possibility of new impacts beyond the right-of-way and we are concerned about our water resources and the environment,” says Chief Joe Miskokomon of the Chippewas of the Thames or Deshkaan Ziibing* in the Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) language.

Deshkaan Ziibing is one of fourteen Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee (Six Nations), and Lenape (Delaware) First Nations living along or near the 38-year old Line 9 pipeline. DeSmog Canada reported last November that the federal government’s failure to fulfill its legal duty to consult with all of these First Nations could land the federal government and the Line 9 project in court.

The legal challenge was filed last Monday with the Federal Court of Appeal on the grounds the NEB approved Line 9 without the federal government “conducting any meaningful consultation” with Deshkaan Ziibing.

“The federal government has to consider our treaty and aboriginal rights enshrined within the constitution,” states Miskokomon in a press release. 

Federal Government Has Legal Duty to Consult on Line 9

“We still need to be consulted and we are willing to listen,” Myeengun Henry, a band councilor with Deshkaan Ziibing said in an interview with DeSmog Canada the night of Line 9’s approval.

The federal government did not attempt to consult any of the First Nations along the route of Line 9.

Both the Canadian Constitution and the Supreme Court have made clear the federal government’s legal duty to consult indigenous peoples in Canada (First Nations, Metis, Inuit) if a decision under contemplation may have adverse impacts on their constitutionally-protected indigenous and treaty rights:

“The honour of the Crown requires that these (indigenous) rights be determined, recognized and respected. This, in turn, requires the Crown, acting honourably, to participate in processes of negotiation. While this process continues, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult and, where indicated, accommodate Aboriginal interests” – Supreme Court’s ruling in Haida First Nation v. British Columbia (2004).

Proposed Changes to Line 9 Triggers the Duty to Consult

The NEB approved changes for Line 9 – increasing the capacity of the pipeline by 20 per cent to transport oilsands bitumen – carry with them new risks and new potential impacts on Deshkaan Ziibing and other First Nations in Ontario and Quebec. According to a pipeline safety expert who spoke with DeSmog last October the odds of a Line 9 rupture, given proposed changes, are 90 per cent.

“This is not an issue of inadequate or improper consultation with First Nations. No consultation by the federal government has taken place whatsoever,” lawyer Scott Smith told DeSmog Canada in an interview last November. Smith represented Deshkaan Ziibing and Aamjiwnaang First Nation in the Line 9 hearings. Deshkaan Ziibing and Aamjiwnaang are both in southwestern Ontario.

The federal government is expected to contest that changes to the pipeline give rise to new potential risks and impacts.

“We are being denied the dialogue to be included in solutions where Aboriginal and treaty rights are impacted by significant economic proposals put forward by industry and backed by the Canadian government,” says Chief Miskokomon. “We are not going away and part of our fate rests with this appeal.”

Deshkaan Ziibing provided evidence during the Line 9 hearings by means of a traditional land use study demonstrating to the NEB that the members of Deshkaan Ziibing still exercise their “aboriginal and treaty rights within the same territory occupied by Line 9.” Hunting, trapping, fishing, and collecting medicinal plants are just some of the traditional practices and rights still exercised by members of Deshkaan Ziibing in the Thames River valley. Line 9 crosses through the river.

Public Challenges Against the Line 9 Project

This is the second legal challenge against the Line 9 project. Last summer ForestEthics Advocacy launched a lawsuit against the federal government’s restrictions on public participation in pipeline project hearings. During the Line 9 hearings, participating citizens were prevented from commenting on the impacts the pipeline would have on climate change and the expansion of the oilsands in Alberta. ForestEthics argues this is a violation of the freedom expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Two Ontario municipalities – Toronto and Whitby – have passed motions demanding the provincial government conduct an environmental assessment of the Line 9 project. The NEB-ordered environmental assessment of Line 9 was only conducted on the pipeline’s pumping stations, not on the pipeline itself. Surprisingly, the assessment failed to take in consideration what would happen if the pipeline ruptured.

*Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Lenape are the names for the “Ojibwe,” “Six Nations” or “Iroquois,” and “Delaware” in their respective languages. Deshkaan Ziibing is the Anishinaabe name for “Chippewas of the Thames.”

Image Credits: Chief Joe Miskokomon by Greg Plain | Line 9 map from Enbridge

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.

The recent oil train derailment and subsequent explosion in North Dakota was yet another reminder tighter regulations and more independent research on transporting oil is needed — particularly where volatile shale oil is concerned. Last week another reminder hit close to home when a CN Rail train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire in New Brunswick.

The responsibility of protecting Canadians from an oil transportation disaster has largely fallen to the provinces while the federal government has weakened or eliminated rules and regulations that get in the way of its priority to sell as much Canadian oil as possible. 

By the end of this month the federal pipeline regulator, the National Energy Board (NEB), is expected to approve Enbridge’s proposal for its 38-year old Line 9 oil pipeline in Ontario and Quebec, which would carry shale oil — known for its propensity to explode as it did in North Dakota.

The NEB is not in the habit of rejecting pipeline projects (see Northern Gateway’s approval). With that in mind, the province of Ontario must hold its ground on Line 9 and ensure its demands for a safer pipeline are met.

While the province could have gone further with its demands, two of the conditions — a hydrostatic test of Line 9 and a third-party independent review — have the greatest potential of reducing the risk of a Line 9 rupture.

The first, hydrostatic testing, is the gold standard for pipeline safety. By pumping water through Line 9 at a slightly higher pressure than its proposed maximum allowable operating pressure, the test can help establish if Line 9 can operate safely at the maximum pressure. It can also identify weak points in the pipeline that need replacing.

The third-party independent review would entail an independent expert looking over Enbridge’s data on Line 9 and would eliminate reliance on Enbridge’s conclusions without duplicating the NEB process.

The least Ontario can do is flex whatever legislative muscle it can muster to ensure compliance with its conditions. Enbridge would do best to adopt these conditions given the company’s reputation as the “Keystone Kops” of oil pipeline safety for their bungling of a 2010 oil spill in Michigan, resulting in three million litres of bitumen spilling over the course of 17 hours.

None of this is to say Ontarians should settle for the Line 9 pipeline. Opposition to transporting oilsands bitumen via Line 9 will continue. The jury is still out on whether bitumen is rougher on pipelines than conventional oil and the difficulties of cleaning up a bitumen spill are well known. Expansion of the greenhouse gas intensive Albertan oilsands completely overshadows Ontario’s efforts to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions.

And while Ontario expressed how important proper consultations with Ontario’s First Nations on Line 9 are, this was not one of the province’s conditions. It would be hard to find a clearer case of the failure to consult with First Nations than that of Line 9.

Still, while the conditions are far from perfect, the province must not be allowed to make demands for pipeline safety they never intend on backing up. Ontario has not breathed a word about its conditions since it presented them to the NEB in a public hearing on Line 9 in October.

Provinces are still responsible for the land, the water and the people within their borders. Failing to act on a pipeline proposal that threatens all of the above would blatantly ignore that responsibility. Oil train explosions and pipeline ruptures cannot be considered the price of doing business.

Image Credits: Enbridge Line 9 Report, Enridge, Pipeline Observer

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.

Former Syncrude CEO and chairman Eric Newell has been tasked with spearheading an expert panel on the effect of energy technology on oil sands development.

The Council of Canadian Academies is convening the panel on behalf of Natural Resources Canada to do an overview of the available literature in order to report on how “new and existing technologies be used to reduce the environmental footprint of oil sands development on air, water and land.”

Newell was one of the architects of oil sands development in Alberta. In the early 1990s, he campaigned aggressively as part of the National Oil Sands Task Force, a group that sought to triple production within 25 years. The campaign was extraordinarily successful, reaching its goal within only eight years, reshaping Northern Alberta in the process.

Since retirement, Newell has served as chair of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation (CCEMC). The CCEMC collects funds from large facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses per year and redistributes them to develop technologies that reduce carbon emissions. He holds honorary doctorates from University of British Columbia and University of Alberta.

This spring he appeared on a Canada 2020 panel alongside Green Party leader Elizabeth May and several others discussing how to bring carbon taxing back into the federal discussion. Although Newell has been a vocal proponent of transparent carbon pricing as an incentive for companies to lessen carbon emissions, his stance was criticized for being overly optimistic regarding the continued necessity of oil sands extraction in meeting future energy needs. 

In the past few years, the Alberta government has appointed several former oil sands executives to key positions of environmental stewardship. In 2007 the provincial government named still active Suncor Energy Inc vice-president Heather Kennedy as Oil Sands Sustainable Development Secretariat.

“It’s not only unusual, it’s completely unacceptable,” NDP Leader Brian Mason told the Edmonton Journal. “It’s an incredible conflict of interest the likes of which I haven’t seen from this government.”

Then early this year, Premier Alison Redford named Gerry Protti, the founding president of oil industry lobby group the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, as head of the Alberta Energy Regulator. The move provoked cries of outrage from First Nations and environmental groups.

Director of Communications for the Council of Canadian Academies Cathleen Meechan stresses that Newell was chosen for his experience, not his industry connections. “We recruit people to sit on our table based on their expertise and based on their background,” she says. “They’re not invited to come to the table to represent a certain sector or stakeholder group.”

Chairs for previous panels convened by the Canadian Council of Academies have included David Strangway, a former head of geophysics for NASA, and John A Cherry, director of the University Consortium for Field-Focused Groundwater Contamination Research.

The results of the report will be available online 24 months after the complete panel has been formed.

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.

Prime Minster Stephen Harper’s hopes for the approval and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which will transport Alberta tar sands crude across the US to refineries and export facilities in the Gulf Coast, hit a stumbling block this summer when Obama announced he will take Canada’s growing emissions problem into account when considering the project’s fate.

The tar sands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, have become the symbol of the country’s climate inaction, a position earning growing public censure across the globe.

Sources recently told the CBC that Harper addressed the issue in a letter he sent to Obama late August, inviting “joint action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector,” if such efforts will help green-light the Keystone XL.

Sources told the CBC that Harper is willing to adopt Obama’s emissions targets and “work in concert with Obama to provide whatever political cover he needs to approve the project.”

Over the last year, the Keystone XL has become a rallying point for environmental organizations and climate activists internationally, as well as those hoping to scale back expansion of the tar sands.

Canada has gone into overdrive in an attempt to promote the nation’s allegedly strong environmental record, while downplaying the climate impacts of the tar sands and the country’s flagging environmental record.

Recently Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver referred to the tar sands as a “greener alternative” than other energy sources. And Alberta Premier Alison Redford traveled to Washington DC to praise Alberta’s environmental record.

In May Stephen Harper visited the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, saying the Keystone XL and the tar sands are projects the US “can’t afford to turn down.”

“Look,” he said, ”environmental challenges, they are real, they have to be dealt with.”

“Obviously constraining the emissions there in the oil sands is going to be important,” he said, adding these emissions amount to “almost nothing globally.”

Although according to Environment Canada data, emission from the tar sands increased some 267 percent between 1990 and 2011, although per-barrel emissions have gone down a reported 26 percent. The overall increase of Canada’s expanding tar sands extraction, however, has the nation’s total emissions set to increase steadily over the next several decades.

Tar sands oil produces 3 to 4 times more emissions in the production phase than conventional oil.

The letter to Obama is an indication that Harper is willing to more openly discuss Canada’s failure to address its emission problem, but means little in terms of positive changes on the ground.

The Keystone XL, which will help move landlocked tar sands crude to market, will inevitably promote growing oil production and GHG emissions in Canada.

“The International Energy Agency says we have to leave two-thirds of the proven reserves of fossil fuels in the ground if we want to have a hope of preventing catastrophic levels of global warming, and turning down [the Keystone XL] project is a good place to start.” Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaign co-ordinator for Greenpeace. 

If Obama is serious about tackling climate change, refusing the Keystone XL is a no-brainer. 

* images used with permission of 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 no secret that the province of Alberta, the government Canada, and the titans of the fossil fuel industry pride themselves on robust regulatory and oversight structures when it comes to the extraction of natural resources.

"Environmental protection is a priority for our government and Canada is a global environmental leader," said Canada’s Natural Resources Minister, Joe Oliver. "This is why Canada's oil sands are subject to some of the most stringent environmental regulations and monitoring in the world."

"The regulations that are in place are very stringent, the most stringent in North America and certainly around the world," added Alberta’s Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Diana McQueen. "We have a lot of development in this province, but we also have very tough regulations with regards to any spills that happen."

"The system is working," continued Alberta Energy Regulator CEO Jim Ellis. "We have the resources we need now to properly regulate it. And that includes compliance, on the ground inspections, regulations… They are capably handling the workload right now."

"It was extremely frustrating. I just reached a point where I was so frustrated I said, 'I'm going to do whatever it takes to extract this information' because I just felt wronged by the whole process," said Timoney. "It just seems like it’s a process that’s designed not to release information but rather to appear to release information."

"When you've looked at thousands of these records, what we're seeing is the tip of the iceberg," added Timoney. "It was evident that there were thousands of incidents the public didn't know anything about."

"Not every incident is going to result in a compliance action," responded Alberta Environment spokesperson Jessica Potter when asked about such a low rate of enforcement. "The determination as to whether or not we move forward with an enforcement action entirely depends on what we find in that investigation."

In short, as both Timoney and the study are at pains to point out, the governments of Alberta and Canada are "absolutely not" doing enough to enforce regulations. "There is this disconnect between the statement from the government that we have these great regulations and we’re strictly enforcing them, and the reality, which is that there are thousands of violations about which they do nothing."

"I feel very strongly that the public has a right to know what’s happening," concluded Timoney. "In this situation, what we’re trying to do is say, 'Decide for yourself. Here’s the information that we gathered. If you wish to decide that environmental management in the bitumen sands region is good or bad, here's a set of information that you can look at to decide for yourself.'"

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.

After several months of delay, the federal and Alberta governments have finally followed through on their promise to release tar sands monitoring data to the general public. The Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Information Portal came online Monday in time for Earth Day.

The portal aims to provide information on air, water, wildlife contaminants and biodiversity. It includes an interactive map with links to monitoring activities all over the province. The site will use satellite measurements to estimate emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide but it will not provide data on carbon emissions. 

Environment Minister Peter Kent touted the website’s launch as evidence that Canada is contributing and doing its part to protect the environment.

“With this portal, our respective governments are actively encouraging informed discussions and analysis on the impacts of oil sands development based on high-quality scientific information.”

While University of Alberta ecologist David Schindler told CBC news he was on board with the move, Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaign coordinator for Greenpeace Canada was less optimistic. "We're a little skeptical, as the system won't be fully implemented until 2015 and yet the two levels of government continue to approve new projects in the absence of reliable data on cumulative impacts," he said.

Indeed, many of the sections promise data that “will be released in the coming months.” 

“The section on biodiversity is focused on more monitoring to determine the problems, when it is already well known what the problems are,” Helene Walsh, boreal program director at the Northern Alberta chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) said via e-mail.

She pointed to a 2009 report that found without “immediate and sufficient action” the boreal caribou would be gone from the landscape within two to four decades.

“Except for recent protection of small portions of two caribou ranges, nothing has been done to meet the needs of caribou in the oil sands region,” she said. “This is an excellent example of monitoring that has been well done, but then no action taken to deal with the results because any meaningful action would require a restriction on oil sands development to protect and/or restore habitat.  Alberta does not ‘balance’ economic with environmental as they would like people to believe.”

She says that as petroleum production in Alberta has risen there has been a corresponding decrease in the caribou population. 

Edmonton-based Greenpeace climate campaigner Mike Hudema told the Vancouver Observer that, although “good data is better than bad data, there is still little plan to act on the data.”

“There is no indication of when, or even if, this will become a truly independent monitoring regime as recommended by the federal government’s scientific panel," he said.

CBC newsreaders also expressed misgivings as to whether the information the portal presents is being accurately interpreted. Statements such as the following from the site’s introduction show a notably reassuring tone in its assessments:

“To date, the results of environmental monitoring show that low levels of oil sands development-related contaminants are present in both air and water. In almost all water and air samples, levels of oil sands development-related contaminants are below relevant environmental guidelines, and levels decrease with increasing distance from oil sands development. Overall, the levels of contaminants in water and in air are not a cause for concern.”

Scientists and activists have consistently identified the Alberta and federal governments’ tendency toward framing facts in misleading terms.

“Anyone with any common sense knows you can't take two years of good monitoring and forecast to find out what changes there have been in the environment,” Schindler recently said of Premier Alison Redford’s attempts to advertise her province’s environmental record during a trip to Washington.

Although there is no direct author cited in the analysis sections, the portal assures that, “data being released has been subject to quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures, and the information has been approved by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Science and Technology, Environment Canada and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Science and Monitoring, Alberta Environment and Water.”

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 Premier Alison Redford is all about facts for her fourth trip to Washington in 18 months. In a webcast speech to the independent think tank, the Brookings Institution yesterday, she said she was hoping to “change the conversation” about the Keystone XL pipeline.

“To be honest, one of the reasons that I wanted to come this week is that the dialogue that’s going on right now does suffer some fairly glaring deficiencies,” she claimed.

She believes that groups opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline are “overshadowing essential truths and we need to make sure that whatever our perspective might be on this project that we’re talking about facts.”

Redford quoted some familiar numbers in the debate over the pipeline that would carry diluted bitumen from Alberta’s tar sands to the Gulf Coast of Texas. “The oil sands contribute 21 percent of Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions, 7 percent of Canada’s emissions, and less than 0.15 percent of the global total,” she said.

One fact she neglected to mention was that, according to the Pembina Institute, “At a rate of 69 tonnes CO2 equivalent per person, if Alberta were a country, it would have per capita emissions more than three times that of either the U.S. or Canada.”

Throughout the speech, Redford touted Alberta’s environmental record. “Alberta is home to some of the most environmentally friendly, progressive legislation in the world,” she said.

Boreal program director at the Northern Alberta chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Helene Walsh, concedes via e-mail that the province does have excellent legislation. The problem, she says, is “we do not enforce it.”

In fact, Walsh sees several factual inaccuracies in Redford's claims. She points to the example of the cumulative effects of development, which must be addressed according to both the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but has been largely ignored. This claim has been backed up by several independent studies, including one by a Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel.

“When it became well known that our tar sands monitoring was not effective in 2004, government should have stopped new approvals,” Walsh says. “But of course that did not happen, and so since 2004 we have not been following our own laws with respect to cumulative effects.”

Massive tar sands development has also lead to dwindling populations of caribou in Northern Alberta, “in spite of commitments and policies from government and industry to maintain them,” says Walsh.

Walsh argues that there is also little evidence for Redford’s claim that growth of tailing ponds will be halted by 2016 and that reclamation of the landscape has already.

The ponds are disappearing “Only in the sense that their toxic contents are transferred into End Pit Lakes covered by fresh water and then left for nature and future generations to deal with,” she says.

She also believes that reclamation of the boreal forests is not sufficient to return biodiversity to areas devastated by tar sands development.

During the speech, Redford also brought up the specter of energy security, saying that opponents to Keystone are unwittingly tilting the playing field in favour of Venezuela. “Unlike so many of your suppliers, Alberta is part of a democratic nation, so your dollars go to support a free and open society—when they don’t come back to you,” she said.

Walsh points out that Venezuela’s protected areas comprise 36% of the country, while Alberta’s comprise only 12% and most of what is protected has little or no commercial value in terms of logging or mining. They are also “not useful for conservation of biodiversity because they do not include enough area for caribou and other species.”

During the question period with Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer, moderated by scholar Daniel Yergin, several protestors stood up to call attention to perceived falsehoods in Premier Redford’s arguments by holding up orange papers that read “FALSE. #NoKXL.”

Later in the day, Redford expressed surprise at the protestors. "Not everyone is always going to agree," she said. "I think the important part is that we share a common platform… a place where we can have that conversation."

However, after the half-an-hour-long speech followed by fourty-five minutes of questions in which she argued forcefully for the pipeline, Redford told reporters, "It is not my job to be the proponent of that project."

"There is a private company that has a commercial interest, that is going through a process where they are addressing the issues that need to be addressed by decision-makers in the United States," she said.

For additonal in-depth information on Redford's "Facts" see Greenpeace Canada's "Fact-checking Premier Redford's Speech in Washington."

Image Credit: dave.cournoyer 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.

Last week, I wrote a short history of the greenwashing campaign being waged by tar sands promoters, including (and especially) the Canadian and Alberta governments. It’s clear that as the battle over the future of tar sands development has intensified, so has the greenwashing necessary to promote it in the age of climate change and increasing environmental literacy. The more people know about the dangerous costs and risks associated with tar sands development, the more time, effort and money its promoters must invest in the alchemy of disingenuous propaganda.

The frustrating part for Canadians concerned with this egregious abuse and misuse of language is that there doesn’t appear to be any recourse. Tar sands supporters seem to disseminate their little black lies with impunity, and there is no way, in a democracy where free speech is sacrosanct, to stop the flood of tar sands bullshit sullying the airwaves.

And yet, I may have stumbled on at least one way to hold those who choose to misrepresent the true nature of the environmental problems associated with turning Alberta’s bitumen deposits into tar sands crude to well-accepted standards of decency and honesty.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

In 2008, the federal government’s Competition Bureau, in partnership with the Canadian Standards Association, published Environmental Claims: A Guide for Industry and Advertisers. Ostensibly, the guide was prepared to help businesses and advertisers (and presumably public relations gurus as well) make self-declared environmental claims in a more honest and informative manner, and to avoid using “misleading or deceptive claims relating to an implied or expressed environmental benefit.”

The guide defines “self-declared environmental claims” as “those claims that are made by manufacturers, importers, distributors, or any person who promotes a product/service or business interest who is likely to benefit from the product’s environmental claims.” It doesn’t explicitly include politicians in this list, but given that tar sands oil is a “product” that is likely to benefit federal and provincial politicians as well as the corporations that produce and transport it, I see no reason not to hold politicians to the same standards as the oil companies for whom they shill.

The federal government’s Competition Bureau, moreover, considers these guidelines, published five years ago now, to reflect “best practices”. While conceding that businesses are free to adopt any business practices they choose, the claims they make cannot be “false or misleading.” If the recommendations included in Environmental Claims are followed, the guide goes on, “it is unlikely that environmental claims used in the promotion of a product or service or business interest would raise concerns under the statutes administered by the Competition Bureau,” which includes the Competition Act.

According to the guide, the types of “anti-competitive activities” frowned on by the Competition Bureau include, among other things, “materially false and misleading representations [that] are made knowingly or recklessly to the public” and “deceptive marketing practices.” Indeed, Section 2.2.2 of the Competition Act “prohibits knowingly or recklessly making, or permitting the making, of a representation to the public, in any form whatever, that is false or misleading in a material respect.”

Referencing CAN/CSA-ISO 14021, which details the appropriate use of environmental terms, the guide specifically states that self-declared environmental claims shall be “accurate and not misleading”, “substantiated and verified”, and “unlikely to result in misinterpretation”. In addition, they shall not “suggest an environmental improvement that does not exist”, nor shall they “exaggerate the environmental aspect of the product to which the claim relates”. Environmental claims shall not be made “if, despite the claim being literally true, it is likely to be misinterpreted by purchasers” or is “misleading through the omission of relevant facts.”

How well do Canada’s political and commercial tar sands promoters follow the federal government’s guidelines on the appropriate use of environmental claims? Not particularly well, as it turns out.

Tar sands development and/or oil has variously been described as a “clean” and “sustainable”  form of energy by various Canadian politicians too numerous to mention. Alberta politicians even talk about bitumen development as part of its “Clean Energy Story” (whatever that means), where they claim Alberta they are “doing our part to move the world towards a clean energy future.” Canada’s outspoken Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver went so far recently as to call them “green.”

It’s hard to imagine that any hydrocarbon, never mind tar sands bitumen, could be reasonably understood to be a “clean” source of energy.

Although the guide doesn’t mention the word “clean” specifically, Section 5.6 specifies that “it is not sufficient to make vague claims of environmental improvement or implying environmental improvement.” If we’re only talking greenhouse gas emissions, energy generated from hydro, nuclear and wind are generally considered the least intensive, and natural gas is the cleanest hydrocarbon (though its ten times worse than hydro). Tar sands oil, on the other hand, is about as dirty as it gets, and is significantly dirtier than conventional crude. It is also getting dirtier as more bitumen is extracted using in situ methods. Bitumen may be cleaner than coal, but calling it “clean” is kind of like calling Hitler humane because he didn’t kill as many people as Stalin.

Tar sands development also spews tonnes (literally) of other pollutants into the region’s land, water and wildlife (and perhaps even people). Some of the pollutants – napthenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals – are toxic at low levels, and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that tar sands mines, upgraders and tailings ponds are spewing the stuff into the air and water faster than anyone’s ready to admit. David Schindler recently found similarities between fish deformities found downstream from Alberta's tar sands and those observed after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska and Florida's Deepwater Horizon disaster.

How about “sustainable”? Not so much. According to the guide, “the concepts involved in sustainability are highly complex and still under study. At this time there are no definitive methods for measuring sustainability or confirming its accomplishment. Therefore, no claim of achieving sustainability shall be made.” (Emphasis added)

Sometimes, the guide admits, “claims that refer to specific, registered management systems are acceptable provided that they can be verified.” Given that neither Canada nor Alberta has an adequate monitoring system in place or a policy regime that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, any claim of “sustainability” is pure hogwash. This probably should apply to Alberta’s Orwellian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development and Canada’s ridiculously ambiguous Federal Sustainable Development Act, neither of which have moved us a millimetre toward so-called “sustainable” development.

The guide specifically identifies the term “green,” which Minister Oliver abused to describe his beloved tar sands oil, as an example of the “vague claims of environmental improvement” that should never be made. Any such claim, the guide goes on, “must detail the environmental benefit in such a way that it can be verified.” It’s difficult to imagine how Minister Oliver could verify that tar sands oil is in any way “green,” but I thought I’d check his website to see what I could find.

Natural Resources Canada’s website used to include a section on the tar sands, but it’s not there anymore. I did learn that the federal government’s Responsible Resource Development Program “will strengthen Canada’s world-class environmental standards.” Canada’s Environment Minister, Peter Kent, made similar claims in a speech he gave about Canada’s “green economy” at the European Union–Canada Going Green Conference in Montreal in March.

Well, the claim about Canada’s “world-class” environmental performance is one that has been verified, and it turns out to be totally and utterly false. Canada has always had some of the worst environmental legislation in the developed world, and it has been weakened further by the Harper government in recent years. And everyone (except Minister Oliver, apparently) knows that Canada is one of the worst emitters (on a per capita basis) of climate-warming greenhouse gases in the developed world.

I could go on and on, but it’s abundantly clear that Canadian politicians have ignored the guidelines the federal government has set out for businesses, advertisers and “any person who promotes a product/service or business interest who is likely to benefit from the product’s environmental claims.” I’m no lawyer, but it would seem to me that the Competition Bureau and the Canadian Standards Association might want to have a look at the “materially false and misleading representations” Canadian politicians are “knowingly and recklessly” making in Canada, Europe and the United States.

Because if politicians can get away with rampant greenwashing, how are they going to hold businesses accountable for doing it?

Part III of this series will explore whether the oil industry does a better job following the federal government’s Environmental Claims Guidelines for Industry and Advertising than Canadian politicians.

Image Credit: TerraChoice The Sins of Greenwashing report.

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.

Canada has the third largest proven oil reserves in the world, but the province of Alberta is planning to cut education and health care spending this year, and Canada's national debt stands at a whopping $600 billion (CAD). 

How can that be? With so many people calling our massive tar sands reserves the "Saudi Arabia of the North," how can we be so cash-strapped? How can the Alberta government be planning to cut funding to schools, education and health care if the province is so oil rich? 

The best answer can be found in Norway, which this year alone will enjoy a $44 billion budget surplus. The country has the 22nd largest proven oil reserves in the world and about 40-percent less oil is produced by that country, compared to Canada. 

On top of massive government budget surpluses, Norway also has no foreign debt, and $634 billion set aside as a public savings fund. This fund, called the Government Sovereign Wealth fund – set up to collect oil and gas revenues – is projected to be worth $1 trillion by 2020 and currently holds more than 1-percent of all the world's equity. 

To put it simply, Norway is rolling in the dough and their number one sector is oil and gas exploration, production and export.

There are many differences between Norway and Canada that can explain why Norway is so rich and Canada so relatively poor, but there is one huge difference that stands out amongst the rest: oil royalties. Royalties are the amount a government charges oil companies for being allowed to extract and sell the country's oil.

Norway charges oil companies about 70-percent of their profits for the right to extract and sell Norway's oil. So for every dollar a company like ExxonMobil or British Petroleum makes in profit in Norway, about 70-cents of that dollar goes to the government and back to the people of Norway. 

A director of the Norwegian Ministry of Oil & Energy, Matte Agerup, summed up Norway's philosophy on their oil reserves best when she explained that, "the state [Norway] operated on the basis that the oil company was the helper in harnessing the country's natural resources, but that the oil ultimately belongs to the nation."

The Canadian government does not charge a royalty on the profits of oil companies operating in the Alberta tar sands, only the Alberta provincial government does. In 2009, the Alberta government collected more in gambling and casino revenue than it did in royalties from oil companies.

In recent years, the Alberta government has been collecting roughly a five to ten-percent royalty from oil companies operating in the tar sands (the calculations, as you can imagine, are complicated, but this appears a safe estimate). Author and tar sands expert, Andrew Nikiforuk, writing in the Tyee, provides a much more in-depth look at the numbers if you're interested. 

Suffice it to say, Canadians are not getting the returns they deserve for the risks they are inheriting. Companies like ExxonMobil, who last year made an estimated $104 million a day from global operations, get to extract oil from Canada's tar sands and sell it off to foreign interests, while Canadians get little more than the resulting climate change pollution and massive toxic lakes of sludge that seep into our freshwater reserves. 

Great deal if you're ExxonMobil. Bum deal for Canadians. But the answer seems pretty simple – charge the oil companies way more for the right to extract and sell our country's oil. Politicians, of course, will tell you it's much more complicated than that. 

But trust me, it isn't. Norway did it and the oil companies are still there. And, in fact, they are investing more than ever.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute 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.

This weekend, thousands of people will be out front of Barack Obama's White House to protest the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline — a 1,879 kilometer length of pipe that will allow oil to be pumped all the way from Northern Alberta to refineries in Texas.

It isn't the XL pipeline itself that is at the heart of the matter though. It is the 500,000 barrels of Canadian tar sands crude that will be pumped through the pipe that has so many Americans upset. And it should upset Canadians too. 

For years Canada was known as one of the world's leading environmental stewards. While a small player, Canada is known for its skills in diplomacy, and was key in the ratification of international environmental treaties like the Rio Earth Summit, the Kyoto protocol on climate pollution reduction and, of course, the Montreal Protocol to reduce acid rain and close the hole in the ozone layer.

For the most part, our country has been very good at striking a balance between the financial bottom line and the long term health of our environment and the people living in it. But that has all changed in a very short amount of time, with the rapid expansion of Alberta's tar sands operations and a federal government that sees economic concerns superseding human health and the livability of the environment around us.

Now that has all come to a head and Canada finds itself in the center of one of the biggest controversies on the planet, with a major superpower at the center. The chickens have, so to speak, come home to roost for Prime Minister Harper and there is an opportunity to make a correction in the road that Canada is currently traveling down. 

The battle over Keystone XL has been brewing for more than four years. With a final decision on Keystone expected from President Obama as soon as the next month or so, the situation has reached a fever pitch: on February 17th in front of the White House, if expectations hold true, we will witness the largest rally ever held in the U.S. on the issue of climate change. More than 20,000 people will gather in Washington D.C. to lobby for action on climate change and to pressure their president to disallow the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

These tens-of-thousands of everyday Americans, whether they know it or not, are protesting Canada as much as they are the Keystone project.

The question for Canadians in all this is not whether we pump tar sands oil down to the United States, but instead a much bigger question of what we want our country to be, and be known for by other people in other countries. In the name of fiscal prosperity at all expense, Stephen Harper's conservative government has decided that Canada will tether itself to the exponential development of the tar sands for decades to come.

Since the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper have taken power, our Canadian government walked away from the Kyoto protocol, when we were one of the first countries to sign it and motivated other countries to follow our lead. Our government fought against a plan by the G20 nations to reduce fossil fuel tax breaks to companies like ExxonMobil, the most profitable company in the history of companies.

Most recently, our government passed a bill that will reduce environmental protections for proposed new tar sands operations. And most egregiously, our government is supporting lobbying efforts to convince the world that our tar sands oil is not only clean, but that is it also "ethical." 

As environmentalist and author Bill McKibben writes, this weekend's protest is about much more than a pipeline:

“Alberta’s tar sands are the continent’s biggest carbon bomb. If you could burn all the oil in those tar sands, you’d run the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide from its current 390 parts per million (enough to cause the climate havoc we’re currently seeing) to nearly 600 parts per million, which would mean if not hell, then at least a world with a similar temperature.” 

Indeed, this weekend's protest is about the future. It's about Canada and the national identity we will be moving forward with. Will we continue on our current path to becoming the world's newest, and possibly last, petro-state — the country that ushers in a "new normal" of extreme weather that we've only seen in the movies?  

Or, will we rebuild our Canada back into the country of international diplomacy and environmental action?  A country whose citizens strive for a balance between environmental protection and economic development? This weekend can serve as an opportunity for Canada to join, at least in spirit, the critical mass in Washington D.C. and let our neighbors to the South know that we too are concerned about the future.

Considering the majority of Canadians did not vote for Stephen Harper, and most believe that he and his government are doing a poor job protecting the environment, the timing of the #ForwardOnClimate rally couldn't be better.

If we can't be there in person, the least we can do is spend a few minutes this week on our smart phones or laptops getting the word out on Facebook and Twitter. It is a far second to showing up, but I can tell you from experience, that every bit counts and you never know what it will be that breaks through the noise.

Send a message of support using the hashtag #forwardonclimate and tell rally participants why, as a Canadian, you support their activities to stop the Keystone Pipeline project.

Share a message on Facebook, by clicking here and sharing the "Forward on Climate" petition, set up by one of the rally organizers 350.org, and tell rally participants that we have their back.

It's the Canadian thing to do, eh.

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.