It is easy to get lost in the numbers when talking about fracking in Alberta: to be temporarily dazzled by the growth of production, the insatiable thirst for water and the profits that follow. 

The practice has seen a dramatic increase over the past 13 years, with production rising sevenfold between 2013 and 2024 to the equivalent of more than 640 million barrels of oil per year. Water consumption also soared 335 per cent, from 6.5 billion litres to almost 30 billion litres of freshwater per year.

Those sorts of figures are almost impossible to comprehend. You could count how many swimming pools that water might fill (164 million), or try to imagine a stack of barrels teetering high into the atmosphere, but what does that really mean?

In parts of rural Alberta, you don’t need those kinds of mental gymnastics to understand the scale of the industry and its impact. The evidence is all around you. Creeks run dry. Hoses and pumps seem to line every ditch. Then there are the trucks and drilling and noise.

This is particularly true in the rural areas of west-central Alberta, a long stretch of the province sandwiched between the foothills to the west and the frenetic Calgary-Edmonton corridor to the east.

It’s here where ranches, farms and communities sit side by side with a fracking boom that is outcompeting the locals for water.

What we saw this summer

Looking back on the past ten years, the summer of 2026 was an anomaly for the area of Alberta an hour drive southwest of Edmonton. Parched fields were inundated with rain early in the season, and rivers and creeks flowed with renewed vigour. Some areas received more rainfall than ever before.

But that moisture wasn’t enough to quell concerns from some residents in the Blindman and Medicine River watersheds, where fracking activity has been increasing — and water concerns are front and centre. 

Fracking involves injecting water deep into the ground to break up rock where gas is trapped in tight crevasses, often thousands of metres under the surface. That water, vast quantities of it, is almost entirely lost to the water cycle as it remains trapped in the reservoirs that previously held gas. The water that does come to the surface is contaminated.

The Narwhal spent a day travelling through the Rimbey, Alta., area with Daniel Iseli-Otto and Assar Grinde, two members of the Blindman River Watershed Society, in July this year, visiting impacted landowners, following pumping hoses to enormous reservoirs and stopping for a photoshoot among Grinde’s cattle.

There’s an image in many a head of what kind of people raise concerns over oil and gas. Former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney often dismissed those with environmental concerns as “foreign-funded radicals,” but those stereotypes don’t hold.

Butch and Nicole Smith, who live in the area, blame the construction of a massive reservoir across from their isolated property for the decline of their bison herd. They’re moving. 

Grinde, whose family has owned its ranch for generations, talks about watching the creek on that land dry up and how the oil and gas companies were still pumping water for fracking while he was left with mud. 

Iseli-Otto curses as we turn onto another gravel road, heavily pitted from the trucks moving back and forth from a fracking reservoir site. “This is industrial pulverization of county roads,” he says, as he slows down in his Ram 3500 pickup truck.

Dana Kreil, the chair of the nearby Medicine River Watershed Society, and a councillor for Lacombe County, jumped in Iseli-Otto’s truck in the afternoon. She says the road in front of her home was “trashed” by one company active in the area.

“I want them to get a bill,” she says.

Not just fracking, not just the Blindman

Travelling through rural Alberta, it feels like the frustrations that come alongside the pay cheques and the royalties of the broader oil and gas industry are increasing in step with a years-long trend of companies failing to pay their share — whether they frack wells or not. 

Even with record profits, investments and jobs don’t stack up the way they used to. Too often, oil and gas companies fail to pay their bills, and that has consequences. Unpaid municipal taxes hurt local governments — and eat into budgets for things like road maintenance — and unpaid leases force landowners to seek government compensation on behalf of delinquent companies. At the same time, there are more and more orphan and inactive wells. 

All of those local impacts intertwine with the changing climate and the associated droughts, fires and floods.

Grinde says no one really thinks of the water the companies pull from the rivers and underground aquifers until there’s not enough to go around, and then it becomes a priority. And although the summer of 2026 was altogether too wet for many farmers, the drought years are predicted to return as part of a longer-term pattern of increased volatility. 

The cause of those swings in climate are once again related to big numbers that are hard to grasp. 

$168 billion in revenue. $22 billion in royalties the government relies on. 310 billion litres of water consumed by Alberta’s oil and gas industry. Then there’s the five billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from global oil and gas production, seven billion tonnes from transportation and the unfathomable heating of oceans. 

The big picture is abstract; hard to fathom. But here at Blindman Creek, the impacts are tangible. 

“It’s really obvious that it’s an issue, but it’s really hard to make it concrete for people,” Iseli-Otto says. “This is an issue for people in Calgary, this is an issue for people in Edmonton, but they don’t know. The amount of water that’s getting sucked out is mind blowing.”

Updated on Oct. 15, 2026, at 2:05 p.m. MT: This story has been updated to clarify that the five billion tonnes from global oil and gas production and seven billion tonnes from transportation refers to tonnes of emissions.

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 parking lot off the highway is busy and there’s a line-up for the outhouses next to a Parks Canada information stand featuring maps from years past. To the left, a wide accessible trail leads to the well-trod bridges and pathways crisscrossing Marble Canyon in Kootenay National Park in southern B.C. just 50 kilometres from the Alberta border. 

The walk up the length of the canyon is short, barely a kilometre, with a little detour near its end where the ubiquitous red chairs of the national park system sit on a rise looking back toward the parking lot. It’s about as far as most people venture, but those red chairs don’t mark the end of the trail system through the valley. 

A few more steps and walkers encounter a sign warning that the trail ahead — still listed on those yellowing maps — is no longer maintained. The sign doesn’t lie. Heading up through Tokumm Creek valley requires climbing over and under fallen trees, over collapsed log bridges and through overgrown brush. 

It’s the sort of trek that eats at Trevor Willson, the president of the Canadian Backcountry Trails Preservation Society. 

“I’m an engineer,” he says, driving through the Rocky Mountains toward Marble Canyon one fall weekend. “So if you have a problem, you don’t ignore the problem, you solve the problem.”

His organization is trying to convince Parks Canada to reinvest in trails it says have been abandoned, hindering backcountry access in parks at a time when more and more people are visiting. That’s particularly true for the Rocky Mountain parks of Banff, Kootenay and Jasper.

According to Willson, the cost of his plan to fix the nation’s parks is minimal, approximately $50 million to replace bridges and fix all of the existing trails, plus one-to-two million dollars per year in maintenance. Parks Canada, he says, doesn’t want to spend the money in an era of budget cuts, and doesn’t want volunteers taking on some of the load. 

But the question runs deeper than dollars and cents, touching on a philosophical debate about the purpose of Canada’s national parks and whether to prioritize recreation, conservation or some balance between the two. 

“Hiking and horseback riding are the classic activities to do in the mountains,” Willson says. “If you want to see the national park, you need to get out of the town of Banff because it’s beautiful, but it’s a very civilized, very well-developed little chunk of real estate.”

It should not be, he says, a “drive-through park.”

‘Proverbial pulling of teeth’: backcountry hikers frustrated with perceived lack of action from Parks Canada

Willson has been involved in trail building and maintenance for years, including building bridges and negotiating partnership agreements with governments. He was inspired to start his society when he tried to convince Jasper National Park to replace a bridge along a historic passage across its northern border — and was rebuffed. 

The Simon Creek bridge broke around 2015, severing a trail that was once a thoroughfare for First Nations and then the fur trade. Willson says he approached Jasper National Park about fixing it but was told there wasn’t enough money. Not one to take no for an answer, Willson found private funding but says he was eventually told rebuilding the bridge would have a negative impact on the ecology of the area. 

Willson and his organization focus their efforts on existing trails and areas where bridges once spanned significant waterways. They do not, as he puts it, campaign to get rid of all obstacles or prevent your feet from getting wet. 

“The point is, if you come to a river or creek and it’s impassable — like you can’t get across — and therefore you have to turn back, that bridge should be replaced,” he says, adding the bridge on Smith Creek crosses a section of fast, opaque and boulder-filled water.

Gavin Fitch, a fellow society member and environmental lawyer based in Calgary, says the group had a formal meeting with Jasper National Park officials in April, but still haven’t received a response. 

“Our optimism has, I would say, changed to pessimism,” he says.

Not only is the Canadian Backcountry Trails Preservation Society trying to convince the government to make investments in trails and bridges — potentially one of Willson’s own designs — but to allow certified volunteers to help maintain the trails. That’s common in provincial parks, particularly in B.C., but Parks Canada has moved away from the practice and is reluctant to change tack, Willson says.

Parks Canada did not directly answer questions emailed by The Narwhal, but says it regularly reviews investments in the more than 8,000 kilometres of trails in its network based on visitation and conservation priorities. 

“These decisions help ensure available resources are focused where they provide the greatest benefit to visitors, Indigenous partners, communities and protected places,” spokesperson Charlotte Bordeleau says in an email. 

“In Kootenay National Park, for example, maintenance on portions of the Tokumm Creek Trail above Marble Canyon was discontinued as part of broader wilderness management decisions designed to support conservation objectives and wildlife habitat protection.”

Climbing over trees and scrambling through brush on the hike from Marble Canyon, Fitch says abandoning infrastructure doesn’t just prevent access to the backcountry, it erases public trails.

The trails are not decommissioned, simply allowed to deteriorate, he says. Then they disappear from government websites. Soon, the hiking apps used by modern adventurers downvote them into near obscurity. 

It’s one reason Fitch carries around a well-worn trail book from 1990, an encyclopedic guide to routes across the Rocky Mountain region that’s fading in the digital age.

“One of the issues here is — now I’m putting on my administrative lawyer’s hat — these are decisions that Parks Canada makes with zero consultation,” he says. 

“And of course, once the decision’s made, as we are finding out, trying to get them to reverse a decision that they’ve made on maintaining a trail is like proverbial pulling of teeth.”

Who is a national park for?

It’s only a matter of minutes up the valley from Marble Canyon and those red chairs before the crowds feel far away. It is quiet and empty and the trees blocking the route multiply as you move farther in. The live trees are short, showing only about 20 years of growth since a fire ripped through this area. Skeletal burnt trunks still hover high amidst the green. 

The quiet, even this close to a highway tourist stop, isn’t uncommon in the sprawling mountain parks that hug that Alberta-B.C. border. The vast majority of land in these parks is tucked far away from main thoroughfares. In Jasper, Willson says his own calculations show 83 per cent of the land is more than five kilometres from a highway. 

“If you don’t have trails to access that 83 per cent, that’s a huge loss,” he says.

But not everyone would agree. 

Bordeleau says Parks Canada has invested approximately $155 million in trail infrastructure since 2015, a figure that goes beyond backcountry trails. But she says the first priority of the agency is protecting the ecological integrity of the parks. 

Willson argues that focus is too restrictive and ignores Parks Canada’s commitment to enjoyment of these vast public spaces.

“Ecological integrity is the number one priority in national parks. It’s written into the National Parks Act, and it states that the national park shall be maintained for future generations, which is fine, is great,” he says. “But they interpret that as ‘Keep people out of the back country.’ ”

At the same time, he says, more and more people are crowding into tourist hot spots. 

According to data from Parks Canada, more than 11,000 people visited Lake Louise in Banff National Park each day in 2025, and the park itself set a new record with 4.5 million visitors that year.

Data from digital tools could help inform Rocky Mountain trail decisions: conservation advocate

Nadine Raynolds, the director of communities and conservation at the environmental group Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, says there are ways to balance human access with ecological integrity, given the proper data and funding. 

But that doesn’t necessarily mean maintaining existing or historic routes and will depend on wildlife routes, the specific species that use an area, the impact of human activities and even the time of year. 

“What is the information that we need to support decision-making on the landscape?” she says. “Often what that leads to is making choices about where those trails should be and where is a place where we maybe shouldn’t put trails because of the wildlife needs.”

Unlike Fitch and his guidebook, her organization leans into digital apps and technologies to determine what areas are popular among humans and wildlife as it decides where to invest tight budgets. And she argues those tools can be effective in monitoring. 

“Land managers that we spoke with in B.C. and Alberta were really keen to explore all these options because they need this information,” Raynolds says, adding those managers don’t have the staff or resources to implement sufficient monitoring programs. 

When it comes to underused backcountry trails, the impact of human activity is unlikely to be significant, and it would be easy to manage numbers with trail restrictions and campsite access. 

But Fitch acknowledges the calculus could work against them, precisely because the number of people who want to trek in the backcountry is small. 

“So I think it would be the bean-counter argument, that the scarce resources which we have should be put to use on essentially front-country infrastructure, so the stuff you can reach easily from the highway,” he says.

‘A very quintessential Canadian thing’

In March, the federal government announced $3.8 billion for initiatives it says will protect Canada’s natural landscapes. Of that, $267 million will go to the creation of two new protected areas overseen by Parks Canada. The plan also calls for private partnerships and investments in Indigenous-led stewardship. 

It’s unclear if those moves will include a reinvestment in backcountry trails, but Willson and Fitch aren’t waiting to find out. They’re stepping up lobbying efforts, meeting with Corey Hogan, the sole Liberal MP in Calgary, and hoping that one of the doors they knock on opens.

Raynolds says the tools and the research exists to plan trails and parks that benefit both wildlife and recreation. But implementing those plans will take political will and a bit of investment.  

Willson hopes there’s more to it than a simple cost-benefit analysis. 

“The park is not only the highways and the towns,” Willson says. “The park is the trails too. Walking and hiking on a trail in wilderness is a very quintessential Canadian thing.”

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.

There was a brief, telling moment when Prime Minister Mark Carney was onstage at a Calgary Chamber of Commerce event last year, following the announcement of a memorandum of understanding with the Alberta government for a new “private sector constructed and financed pipeline” to the West Coast. 

Deborah Yedlin, the CEO of the chamber, mentioned the agreement’s stipulation: the project needed a private proponent rather than public funding. Then she said the project required “derisking.”“Are you saying there’s no room for the government to derisk something for a period of time in order to attract private capital that’s needed for a project like that?” she asked Carney. In other words, how far was Carney willing to go to protect industry from losses?Carney listed off moves his government was making, including regulatory clarity, tax incentives and loan guarantees to move the project forward. And then he said: “In essence, the Asian pipeline will be a private sector project …”

That one word, essence, bore considerable weight. 

So too did the timing of the Oct. 1 announcement that the pipeline — now known as Pacific Link — would be the first project of national interest listed under the federal government’s sweeping Building Canada Act. It comes just over two weeks before Alberta holds a referendum on whether to hold an independence referendum, as well as a slew of questions aimed mostly at immigrants. 

From the beginning, the pipeline plan was a political one, based on a calculus that can be hard to understand outside of Alberta, where decades of government and industry messaging has succeeded in tightly weaving oil and gas into the province’s culture. 

Never has that narrative been pushed harder than by the United Conservative Party government, first under former premier Jason Kenney and now amplified even more under Premier Danielle Smith. 

Having directly linked the future of the country with deregulation for the oil and gas sector, Smith now faces the headwinds of that rhetoric in the form of a burgeoning separatist movement. It’s one she has aided to protect herself from an influential secessionist base in her party. 

It’s a situation Carney has recognized and attempted to shape, acquiescing to Alberta’s demands in an effort to shore up a united front as threats from the United States grow more stark. 

The prime minister might have promised Canadians a “private sector constructed and financed pipeline” in last fall’s memorandum. But it was clear from the beginning he was willing to pay a premium to achieve peace. 

How Alberta’s politics of wealth and alienation fuelled the Pacific Link promise

After their first meeting in March of last year, Smith threatened Carney with an “unprecedented national unity crisis” if he did not respond to a list of demands almost entirely focused on boosting the oil and gas sector. 

It was part and parcel of a wider campaign to link Alberta’s political and economic fortunes more tightly with fossil fuels, including moves to designate emissions data as critical infrastructure to prevent the federal government from accessing it and put up regulatory and economic hurdles to block renewable energy development. 

Smith’s actions are part of a long history of resentment that stretches back as far as the creation of the province, when the federal government denied Alberta control over its natural resources, a move that was later reversed. 

There’s an entire mythology of eastern Canadian domination built up around the National Energy Program introduced by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the early 1980s, which still resonates with separatists and mainstream conservatives alike. In this century, the climate actions of his son Justin Trudeau inflamed a new sense of subjugation in the oil patch. 

Those resentments and mythologies have been curated by successive Alberta governments as an easy way to rally Albertans to their cause and help cover up internal failures, particularly when it comes to budget crashes. And now it has reached a fever pitch. 

Carney, a veteran of Brexit and big brain amidst big brain money makers, recognized the weight of Smith’s threat and an especially restless Alberta, particularly as the geopolitical landscape shifted under his feet. He wasted no time in wooing her, and her province. 

He has proven willing to deregulate and slash emissions programs and targets to help industry. Now, he’s opening the federal government’s hefty purse to buy peace. The pipeline will cost billions, without any promise that price will be enough to please Smith’s government and the powers it has unleashed. 

Pacific Link pipeline promise is rushing to meet a very specific moment

Pacific Link is moving fast, because it’s meant to meet this specific moment: oil prices are high, Alberta separation is occupying vital political real estate, and a trade war with the U.S. is both threatening Canadian well-being and galvanizing political will for big risks and fast action. 

In this rush, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that many important details still aren’t finalized — such as the route, financing and oilsands companies meeting requirements for a massive carbon capture and storage project.

All of this makes meeting this specific moment difficult, to say the least. It will be years before the pipeline is online. 

There are also serious questions about investing billions of taxpayer dollars into a project for a sector facing possible reductions in demand and a global shift away from the uncertainty of oil markets. Not to mention concerns over the impacts of increased emissions and the reduced ambitions for carbon capture. 

Despite this announcement, the referendum will still take place. The provincial government is spending millions to tell Albertans to send Ottawa a message and stand up for a more sovereign province. Its list of demands remains, even if Smith is playing nice with Carney for the time being.

The willingness of the Alberta government to act in good faith is also questionable. Only days after it signed last fall’s memorandum with the federal government, it went ahead with changes which undermined its industrial carbon price that it promised to strengthen in the agreement. 

That’s the same memorandum containing the broken promise of a “private sector constructed and financed pipeline.” It all suggests Donald Trump isn’t the only Western leader who signs agreements in pencil. 

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 leaked document, labelled a cabinet report and outlining possible plans to overhaul Alberta’s natural gas pipeline system to spur AI data centre construction, caused an uproar last week. 

It was top of mind for Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on her weekly radio show, it was the subject of an Alberta NDP news conference and it was in media outlets of every stripe. But what exactly is the leaked document at the heart of the controversy and what does it actually mean?

The document, first obtained by The Narwhal, has spread far and wide, at least according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi. Multiple media outlets say they’ve received a copy, but the full details have not been made public. Until now. 

The document was leaked to The Narwhal by a government official whose identity is being kept confidential. The Narwhal verified they are in a position that would likely have access to such a document, and the provincial government did not deny its authenticity when it issued a statement in response to the leak.

The Narwhal is publishing a copy of the document it obtained, alongside an explanation of what it all means — and whether it is, as Smith’s government now suggests, merely one of many considerations it reviews on a regular basis. 

A copy of the document can be found here. The document will contain some typos, introduced by efforts to ensure the document’s source remains confidential.

Let’s dive in.

What’s the deal with that leaked document?

The document outlines plans for the province to overhaul how natural gas pipelines operate and are regulated within the province. 

According to the document, the recommended proposals for consideration include changing the regulations in Alberta to ensure all natural gas pipelines fall under provincial jurisdiction, and then also passing legislation that would allow the government to create two Crown corporations. One corporation could oversee the pipeline system and compel companies to make investments deemed a priority by the government, and the other could build and operate, or bankroll, new pipelines — and directly compete with existing private companies.

If the government doesn’t go for the recommendations, the document says there could be some combination of those interlocking options. For example, creating the Crown corporation that would oversee the system, but not the corporation that could build or bankroll new pipelines. There is also the option to continue with the status quo. 

The document includes timelines for cabinet decisions, as well as implementation. It also breaks down the estimated costs of implementing the changes, including the multimillion-dollar costs of possible legal battles with companies including TC Energy.TC Energy owns and operates the largest natural gas pipeline system in the province, called the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline, or NGTL. 

TC Energy and ATCO, another energy company mentioned in the document, did not respond to a detailed list of questions about the contents of the document by publication time.

In a statement released after the document was leaked, TC Energy said it is prepared to keep investing in its pipeline system to meet demand.“This will require all of us — industry, customers, regulators, governments, stakeholders and rightsholders — to come to the table and improve the conditions to get infrastructure built,” it reads.

“The key is working together to bring forward credible solutions, capital and capacity quickly enough to support Alberta’s growth and enable Canada to unlock the opportunity to meet the moment.”

Wait, why is Alberta considering this? Do we need pipelines for AI data centres?

The plans for natural gas expansion are not just about data centres, there is also reference to expanding oil and gas production, including access to natural gas for oilsands operations. 

But the expansion of AI data centres are front and centre throughout the document, which notes “the Government of Alberta is actively courting hyperscale data centre capital and other investors.”So why do we need gas for that?

The Alberta government is eager to host data centres in the province, with a line-up of potential projects that dwarf any other region in the country. The province, realizing there was no way to power all those projects, capped access to the electricity grid and told producers to build their own power if they want to get up and running. 

The draft rules for data centres require that electricity to be generated by natural gas, at least for now, part of a wider plan to increase production and demand for the resources.

In a recent interview with The Hub, the government argued bottlenecks in the natural gas pipeline network are an impediment to attracting and building more data centres, one of the key reasons it wants to incentivize, or force, expansions to natural gas pipelines.

TC Energy said in its statement that it has invested approximately $15 billion into expanding its Alberta network over the past ten years and plans to spend billions more. 

The document says it’s not moving fast enough.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says this is just spitballing, is that true?

The first thing Smith addressed on her weekly radio show on Sept. 12 was whether or not the province is considering spending billions to build new pipelines for data centres.“Short answer, no,” Smith said, in response to the question from host Wayne Nelson.

She then went on to add nuance to that hard “no.”

TC Energy has a “monopoly” on the gas pipeline system, she said, and the government wants other companies to build more access. 

“We would very unlikely have to create a Crown corporation to do it,” she said.

But the premier did not rule out compelling private companies to build more natural gas pipelines the government deems to be in the province’s best interests. 

One day earlier, after The Narwhal broke the news of the leaked document, the office of Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean issued a statement.“Governments routinely examine a wide range of policy, regulatory and legislative options when considering complex issues, and internal materials do not represent government decisions,” it read.

Is this just a passing idea?

The Narwhal shared excerpts from the document with Shannon Phillips, a former environment minister in the NDP government between 2015 and 2019. Though she is not involved in the current deliberations, speaking from past experience with such documents she said she believes the document outlines a “serious plan.”

“This isn’t just the government blueskying,” she said. “They’re going to move.”

Lori Williams, a political science professor at Mount Royal University, agrees with Phillips. The Narwhal also shared excerpts of the leaked document with Williams.

 “This is a fairly well-developed plan with very short timelines, and this isn’t just a discussion about something that might happen someday,” she said based on her review. (Williams is not privy to any internal details about the government’s deliberations.) “This is something that’s got timelines for this month.”

According to the document, the plan went before a high-level cabinet committee on Sept. 10 and is scheduled to be presented to the full cabinet on Sept. 22. The document says it would then move to the government’s legislative review committee to draft new laws on Oct. 15 and then new regulations on Dec. 4. 

“The idea that it’s just a speculative exercise is harder to maintain when you’ve got timelines that begin this month,” Williams said. 

An internal government source, whose identity is being kept confidential due to professional risk, said the cabinet report is moving forward regardless of the statements made by Smith over the weekend.

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

This story uses information from sources The Narwhal has agreed not to name. The Narwhal only agrees to keep names confidential when we believe two things. First, that the person we’re speaking with is putting themselves at genuine risk, either personal or professional, by sharing this information with us. Second, that the information they’re sharing is in the public interest. Our decision to do so is never made lightly. 

There are two types of unnamed sources. A confidential source is someone whose name we know, but aren’t sharing. We make multiple attempts to verify their identity and information with other sources. If we aren’t able to get a second source, we say so. 

An anonymous source is someone whose name we don’t know. It is incredibly rare for The Narwhal to publish a story with a completely anonymous source. In these instances, we don’t publish until we have verified the information shared with us with at least one other source. 

And again, these stories must be in the public interest. 

As Canadian governments become increasingly secretive, the courage of whistleblowers is to be admired. We value them greatly. At the same time, our promise to readers is The Narwhal will always make sure the facts are airtight. 

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

The Alberta government did not respond to questions about whether it was pursuing the plans outlined in the document by publication time.

What else is the Alberta government saying?

One item in the document raised particular concern for some, and was the focus of a news conference Nenshi hosted the same day The Narwhal published its story: cost for consumers.

The document warns the moves will likely increase costs for Albertans. One estimate in the document suggests the government’s aim is to almost double natural gas prices to support and expand production, which could see the cost to generate electricity rise by 25 per cent. That cost would then be passed down to consumers on their power bills, but the document does not predict those impacts. 

On her call-in show, Smith argued the opposite was true. 

“If you have constrained gas, and there’s more demand than there is supply, that’s what causes prices to go up,” she said. “And so what you need to do is you need to increase supply so prices stay low.”

That runs counter to estimates laid out in the document, the government’s own ambitions. It also runs counter to outside analysis.

How could the plan in this document affect your power bills?

Data centres consume vast quantities of power. One hyperscale data centre can consume as much power as the entire city of Edmonton, or more. That also means they consume vast quantities of natural gas in their power plants. 

It’s one reason why the government has explicitly linked increased natural gas demand with the data centre buildout, and argued the increased demand will help natural gas producers and the government’s own bottom line through increased royalties. 

Analysis from the Pembina Institute estimates the recently announced Meta data centre near Edmonton alone could add $270 to $460 to electricity bills each year.

Beyond the cost of gas, there is also concern with the potential costs passed down to taxpayers from lawsuits, the construction and operation of pipelines or the creation of a new corporation to oversee the pipeline network.

Sonya Savage, an energy minister under premier Jason Kenney, told the Calgary Herald this week that government interventions in the market can be a big gamble. 

“It makes me very nervous, because there is not a great track record,” Savage said in the wake of the document leak.

“But [if] the private sector is not prepared to invest in projects that are in the public interest — and have public merit and benefits — then I’m not opposed to the government looking and researching.”

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.

Naheed Nenshi, the NDP leader of Alberta’s Opposition, is accusing Premier Danielle Smith of a scheme that could increase power bills for Albertans “so she can build AI data centres for her foreign billionaire friends.” 

The comments come from a news conference organized by the NDP in response to reporting by The Narwhal on a leaked document — labelled a “cabinet report” and bearing the Alberta government logo — that appears to show the provincial government is planning to take control of Alberta’s natural gas pipeline system to increase both supply and demand. 

The document outlines plans to wrest regulatory control over the province’s main natural gas transmission line, called the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline, owned and operated by TC Energy, away from the federal Canada Energy Regulator, and to create two new government-owned corporations. One of those Crown corporations could force companies to build natural gas pipeline expansions based on government priorities, while the other could build and operate the pipelines itself. 

Those moves, according to the document, would raise prices on ordinary Albertans and businesses, but would bring in more royalties for the government. 

“Let me reiterate this: Danielle Smith is rolling out the red carpet for data centres, and that will cause higher electricity prices, and she doesn’t care if it spikes your electricity and your heating bills,” Nenshi said.

Detailed questions were sent to several Alberta ministries prior to publication of the original story, but the government did not respond by publication time. 

Late Friday afternoon, the office of Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean sent a statement to The Narwhal in response to a follow-up email asking for comment on the original story.

“Governments routinely examine a wide range of policy, regulatory and legislative options when considering complex issues, and internal materials do not represent government decisions,” it said.

“An increasing number of project proponents across a variety of industries have raised concerns about accessing industrial quantities of natural gas in several regions of Alberta. We are working with industry, including the natural gas infrastructure owners, to better understand these issues and identify practical solutions that support future growth and investment.”

The document on which the reporting was based was leaked to The Narwhal by a source within the Alberta government, whose identity is being kept confidential due to personal and professional risks stemming from the leak. 

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

This story uses information from sources The Narwhal has agreed not to name. The Narwhal only agrees to keep names confidential when we believe two things. First, that the person we’re speaking with is putting themselves at genuine risk, either personal or professional, by sharing this information with us. Second, that the information they’re sharing is in the public interest. Our decision to do so is never made lightly. 

There are two types of unnamed sources. A confidential source is someone whose name we know, but aren’t sharing. We make multiple attempts to verify their identity and information with other sources. If we aren’t able to get a second source, we say so. 

An anonymous source is someone whose name we don’t know. It is incredibly rare for The Narwhal to publish a story with a completely anonymous source. In these instances, we don’t publish until we have verified the information shared with us with at least one other source. 

And again, these stories must be in the public interest. 

As Canadian governments become increasingly secretive, the courage of whistleblowers is to be admired. We value them greatly. At the same time, our promise to readers is The Narwhal will always make sure the facts are airtight. 

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

The moves could cost billions of public dollars if the government builds its own pipelines, according to the document. The document estimates it will cost more than $160 million just to institute the changes and fight anticipated legal battles with companies such as TC Energy, or potentially First Nations. “There may also be litigation risk from Indigenous communities and organizations where they believe that they have not been meaningfully engaged from early on in any proposed projects,” the document reads.

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation Chief Sheldon Sunshine said his community, which is fighting a massive data centre proposal in northern Alberta led by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary, is “outraged” by the details outlined in the document, which he says he has independently reviewed.

“For years, our Nation has been fighting for meaningful consultation and effective regulation of hyper-scale data centres — including the massive O’Leary Project,” he said in a statement sent to The Narwhal. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is not specifically named in the leaked document.

“Now we find out that the United Conservative Party government is trying to artificially drive up the demand for natural gas to lure even more of these data centres to Alberta — all while knowing that this would trample our Treaty Rights and send electricity prices soaring for all Albertans.”

The document estimates building a pipeline to meet government expectations could cost as much as $6 billion. The capacity from that new pipeline could provide enough gas for six gigawatts of power generation for data centres, according to the document. A recently rejected AI data centre near Olds, Alta., would have required a 1.4-gigawatt power plant and used as much power each day as the City of Edmonton.

According to information on TC Energy’s website, the company has invested approximately $15 billion into the Nova Gas Transmission system since 2015, with double the capacity increases outlined in the document.

The document points to the need to feed natural gas to AI data centres as a primary motivation for the moves, but also highlights desired growth in the oil and gas sector, saying “the Government of Alberta is actively courting hyper-scale data centre capital and other investors.”

Nenshi, who said he has now seen the leaked document himself, was blunt. 

“This report makes it clear that their strategy all along was to do whatever they could to increase natural gas prices, to promote the government’s own bottom line due to their own fiscal mismanagement,” he said. The document suggests the moves could increase royalties to the government while consumers could end up paying higher prices for their natural gas and electricity bills under the proposed plan.

Document leaked by whistleblower for whom Canada affords little protection: expert

According to David Hutton, a senior fellow with the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, whistleblowers who leak sensitive information to the media run a considerable risk, from losing their jobs, friendships or families through divorce.

He said Canada is “back of the bus” when it comes to protections.  

“International experts have done surveys of various countries and rated them, and we come out at the bottom,” he said in an interview. The federal government has a whistleblower program, but Hutton said there’s never been compensation awarded through it. 

Provincial laws are similar to the federal protections, including Alberta’s, and “are really not of any value,” he said. 

He stresses how crucial it is for public-interest information to see the light of day. As The Narwhal has reported, this is becoming increasingly difficult in Canada as multiple levels of government tighten freedom of information legislation. 

“Research done over decades now has consistently shown that tips from whistleblowers account for usually more than 40 per cent of all of the frauds that are uncovered [globally],” he said, highlighting one aspect of information that is shared.

There is no indication of fraud in the leaked document in Alberta. 

The plans outlined in the document single out TC Energy, which owns and operates the largest gas pipeline system in the province, as a likely source for legal action pushing back against the plans, due to the impacts on its business. 

The company did not respond to questions for the original article or for this follow up. 

Nenshi said he has not yet spoken with representatives from the company after the revelations were made public, but intends to. 

“To actually say government wants to step in in order to hurt people, and that government is strong-arming a company to make billions of dollars in investments that they don’t want to make, with the threat of competing with them if they don’t?” he said. “That’s textbook bullying behaviour. It’s also bad economics and it’s bad business.”

Document points to constraints imposed by feds, says Alberta seeks to ‘achieve greater control’

The document points the finger not just at TC Energy, but also at constraints imposed by the federal regulation of the natural gas transmission network.

“Federal regulatory oversight … is now compounding Alberta’s gas access challenges,” the document reads, adding this oversight “has caused growing concern about the pace of infrastructure development for the [natural gas transmission network].”

The document suggests moving TC Energy’s Alberta pipelines back under provincial regulatory control and under the authority of one of the new government corporations.

Some pipeline networks within the province are already under provincial jurisdiction, including the ATCO distribution network that interconnects with TC Energy’s system. ATCO operates approximately 8,500 kilometres of pipelines in Alberta, whereas the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline, the province’s main natural gas transmission line operated by TC Energy, is about 25,000 kilometres.

“Without provincial regulatory oversight, the Government of Alberta is limited in its ability to compel federally regulated pipelines to invest in capacity expansions,” reads the document.

“Due to the federally regulated [natural gas transmission line] system being fully subscribed, the province cannot guarantee the timely expansion of gas transmission capacity required to support new demand.”

Have something to share about Alberta’s push for more data centres and oil production? Send us a story tip.

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.

Editor’s note: Go here to read The Narwhal’s story on the backlash that followed this investigation.

Alberta is so determined to usher in a wave of AI data centres and increase oil and gas production that it is considering rewriting legislation and creating government-owned corporations that would force private companies to invest in natural gas pipeline expansions — or allow the government to build and operate those pipelines itself — according to a document leaked to The Narwhal. It’s also willing to pay for any legal challenges that follow. 

The document — labelled a “cabinet report” and bearing the Alberta government logo — contains a broad swath of recommendations it indicates were prepared for the Energy and Minerals Ministry led by Minister Brian Jean, and says it was scheduled to be presented to a high-level cabinet policy committee on Sept. 10.

The document says private ownership of natural gas transmission pipelines is throttling growth and that “escalatory and direct measures are now required,” especially as “the Government of Alberta is actively courting hyper-scale data centre capital and other investors.”

The document notes Alberta risks losing investment from AI data centre companies if it can’t come up with “speed-to-market” solutions.

According to the document, the government has been in talks with TC Energy, which owns and operates Alberta’s main natural gas pipeline system, since 2024 in an attempt to force the company to invest in new pipeline capacity, but the company refuses to build based on “speculative demand.” TC Energy did not respond to detailed questions.

Talks with the company stalled, according to the document, after the company pitched a plan that would involve the province assuming more financial liability for the pipeline system and forcing higher rates on those who use it. 

“Discussions continued until 2026 and escalated with the premier’s involvement,” reads the document. “Extensive discussions with TC Energy [have] produced no viable solutions to date.”

The document is critical of TC Energy’s track record, saying the company’s “underinvestment in [natural gas] pipeline capacity has caused a market failure in the natural gas sector leaving key growth regions unable to access gas,” calling the result a “dysfunctional natural gas pipeline network.”

The document was leaked to The Narwhal by a government official whose identity is being kept confidential. The Narwhal has verified they are in a position that would likely have access to such a document. The Narwhal has not been able to independently verify the authenticity of the document, but Alberta’s lobbyist registry confirms TC Energy has been in talks with government officials regarding “increased support for gas market access,” as well as discussions on “strategic natural gas initiatives.”

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

This story uses information from sources The Narwhal has agreed not to name. The Narwhal only agrees to keep names confidential when we believe two things. First, that the person we’re speaking with is putting themselves at genuine risk, either personal or professional, by sharing this information with us. Second, that the information they’re sharing is in the public interest. Our decision to do so is never made lightly. 

There are two types of unnamed sources. A confidential source is someone whose name we know, but aren’t sharing. We make multiple attempts to verify their identity and information with other sources. If we aren’t able to get a second source, we say so. 

An anonymous source is someone whose name we don’t know. It is incredibly rare for The Narwhal to publish a story with a completely anonymous source. In these instances, we don’t publish until we have verified the information shared with us with at least one other source. 

And again, these stories must be in the public interest. 

As Canadian governments become increasingly secretive, the courage of whistleblowers is to be admired. We value them greatly. At the same time, our promise to readers is The Narwhal will always make sure the facts are airtight. 

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

Detailed questions sent to the premier’s office, including for confirmation of details in the document, were sent to the press secretaries for the premier and the ministers of affordability and utilities, energy and minerals, jobs, economy, trade and immigration, and treasury board and finance. There was no response by publication time. 

There was also no response to an email and phone call to Vitor Marciano, the chief of staff to the energy minister.

Late Friday afternoon, following the morning publication of this story, the office of Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean sent a statement to The Narwhal saying “Governments routinely examine a wide range of policy, regulatory and legislative options when considering complex issues, and internal materials do not represent government decisions.”

“An increasing number of project proponents across a variety of industries have raised concerns about accessing industrial quantities of natural gas in several regions of Alberta,” it added. “We are working with industry, including the natural gas infrastructure owners, to better understand these issues and identify practical solutions that support future growth and investment.”

According to the document, the full slate of proposals for cabinet consideration include taking regulatory control for the pipeline transmission network operated by TC Energy away from the federal Canada Energy Regulator, creating a Crown corporation that would guide pipeline construction based on government forecasting, and another Crown corporation that would oversee, or build and operate, its own pipelines. 

That would give the government the power to control some private investment decisions, including directing companies to build pipelines, and it could also make the government a direct competitor of companies such as TC Energy. 

The document argues the moves are necessary to rapidly build natural gas pipeline capacity to help increase oil and gas production and spur data centre growth. The government’s data centre strategy explicitly encourages the use of natural gas for power generation. 

Since the release of that strategy, the government has restricted AI data centre access to the provincial grid until 2028 because there is not enough power to fuel demand and keep the lights on. Developers are required to build their own power supply, which is currently restricted to natural gas power plants.

Albertans could be on the hook for hundreds of millions — or billions — to help support power for AI data centres: document

The moves could cost Albertans. 

The document is clear one of the main drivers of the plan, in addition to increasing the province’s oil and gas production, is attracting AI data centres to the province. “Alberta’s ability to attract and retain data centre investment depends on reliable access to natural gas service,” the document says. 

The recommended changes would result in “significant legal and cost impacts for the Government of Alberta,” according to the document, as well as likely result in “increases for utility ratepayers.”

The document notes Albertans may be “sensitive” to what it calls “any change in perceived affordability.”

The preliminary estimated cost of the proposed changes, including the planning and creation of Crown corporations and potential ensuing legal battles, could exceed $162 million, according to estimates in the document, but that does not include possible infrastructure costs.

The document estimates building a pipeline to meet government expectations could cost as much as $6 billion. The capacity from that new pipeline could provide enough gas for six gigawatts of power generation for data centres, according to the document. A recently rejected AI data centre near Olds, Alta., would have required a 1.4-gigawatt power plant and used as much power each day as the City of Edmonton.

The total cost includes anticipated litigation from TC Energy and other companies, including concerns over “significant claims for compensation” for “alleged expropriation of valuable contractual rights.” 

The document warns First Nations could also initiate lawsuits. 

The moves could also make things more expensive for residents and businesses by driving up the price of natural gas, according to the document.

“While low prices benefit customers (Albertans and industrial users), they limit provincial royalty revenues and can discourage natural gas investment by reducing producer revenues,” the document reads. 

“Increased natural gas demand could contribute to higher costs for households, businesses and gas-intensive industries, which could deflect stakeholder support.”

The document also notes “potential disproportionate impacts on seniors and rural residents can be mitigated by monitoring affordability and exploring mitigation measures specific to households and small businesses.”

The government’s aim is to almost double natural gas prices to support and expand production, which would increase the cost of electricity generation by up to 25 per cent, based on calculations in the document. 

It’s unclear exactly what that could mean for Albertans’ power bills, but those costs could be passed down to Albertans, who the document warns could be upset about government spending and increased costs. 

A recent analysis from the Pembina Institute, estimates the recently announced Meta data center near Edmonton could add $270 to $460 to electricity bills each year.

The document suggests government messaging could sell the plan to Albertans to “help strengthen social licence.”

Have something to share about Alberta’s push for more data centres and oil production? Send us a story tip.

Updated on Sept. 13, 2026, at 2:11 p.m. MT: This article was updated to include a statement from the office of Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean. The statement was received after publication of the article. No response was received to questions sent in advance of publication.

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 Coal Valley mine, nestled in the foothills of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains, is a sprawling 200 square kilometres and has been in operation since 1978. Three hours west of Edmonton, it stretches alongside Highway 40, forming a long, narrow gash that includes large open mine pits as well as areas in the process of being reclaimed. It’s part industrial, part moonscape, part nature. 

It has been closed over the years as markets dip — most recently for three months in 2025 — and it has moved tremendous amounts of earth and coal. Currently only one of its pits is active.

On paper, the mine looks bad. There have been 16 incidents in the past three years, almost all of which were spills into the creeks and rivers in and around the site. That makes it the worst existing mine in Alberta in terms of the number of infractions. But the company behind the mine says numbers don’t tell the whole story.

The mine operates under the name Prairie Mines and Royalty ULC, and is ultimately owned by Denver-based Westmoreland Mining, one of three companies that still operate commercial coal mines in Alberta. It was the only one to respond to questions emailed from The Narwhal for an article about infractions at coal mines. 

“We appreciate your questions and the approach you’re taking with this story,” Jon Heroux, Westmoreland’s director of external affairs, wrote. “I think we can do one better than simply giving you an interview over the phone or by email.”

This is not typical of Alberta’s coal mining companies, many of which seldom, if ever, respond to journalists’ requests.

A little more than a week later, company representatives spent a day driving two journalists from The Narwhal around the site.

Alberta government wants to bring industry back from the brink

Coal was once big business in Alberta. Rich seams were found buried in the mountains and foothills, and the Prairies offered easy access to lower-quality coal that powered local electricity plants for decades. As recently as 2018, coal-fired power was the main source of electricity in Alberta.

The Crowsnest Pass in the southwest boomed (and busted) alongside the black rock at the heart of its economy, bringing wealth but also disparity, which led to strikes and even communist agitation from disgruntled workers.

But the markets changed — changes in demand, swings in prices — and so did government regulations. As the industry waned in the south of the province, the 1970s government of former Progressive Conservative premier Peter Lougheed introduced restrictions aimed at preserving beloved landscapes — and the all-important water that trickles and surges down those rocky slopes.

Three decades later in 2024, the phase-out of coal-fired electricity — a significant source of air pollution and emissions — in Alberta spelled the end of strip mines near electrical power plants, which are now mostly powered by natural gas. But that phase-out still allows for some mining. Alberta produces both thermal coal, which is exported to places that still burn it for electricity or for industrial uses, and metallurgical coal, which is used in steel-making.

Today, just three large commercial coal mines are up and running (four if you count Dodd’s, a family operation that mostly serves individuals and farms). Coal Valley is one of two that produces thermal coal mostly used in factories abroad while the third is a metallurgical mine. 

But it’s not the end of the story of coal in Alberta, at least not yet. 

The current provincial government has opened the door to new mines in areas set aside by the Lougheed conservatives in 1976, and a new coal policy — a guide to where and when mining can take place — is expected this year. This follows five years of acrimonious debate and public backlash against opening the Rocky Mountains to new mines.

According to data from the Alberta Energy Regulator, the three existing mines have struggled to keep coal waste and sediment out of the province’s waterways, a key concern for Albertans wondering what will happen to the headwaters for the Canadian Prairies if they’re contaminated.

There have been 42 incidents in the past three years, almost all of which involve water.

Further south of the existing mines clustered in west-central Alberta, new metallurgical coal mines have been pitched for the traditional mining region near Crownest Pass. The water that flows from the rocky slopes there tumbles across an astonishing expanse of prairie clean through to Manitoba, providing habitat and hydration to ecosystems, helping to irrigate crops and slake the thirst of livestock, wildlife and humans alike.

Cavernous pits and tree-lined lakes

Inside the main office at Coal Valley, the smell of coal — like fresh asphalt — permeates the two-storey space, which sits next to workshops designed to handle repairs on towering mine dump trucks. The walls are adorned with colouring sheets showing mine workers, carefully filled in by local young students, some of whom have parents at the mine.

Inside a conference room a map of the mine is displayed under a glass top on the table. Here, Scott Sturm, Westmoreland’s chief operating officer, and Steve Love, the mine’s general manager, talk about operations and reclamation, water and regulations while pointing to areas on the map. Charles Reid, senior legal and government affairs counsel, asks that the conversations not be recorded.

They talk about how the coal on site doesn’t have high levels of selenium, a compound that’s harmful to fish and human health in high quantities and a key concern in the ongoing debate about the future of coal mining in Alberta. The lack of selenium is a simple bit of geochemical luck rather than the product of engineering or human ingenuity, but it helps the company set itself apart when discussing spills. Its claims are backed up by water sampling conducted for the company by an independent contractor. 

Before setting out for a tour of the mine, they talk about the incidents listed by the regulator, including areas where spills have occurred. 

One recent incident dumped sediment in a creek, the result of erosion from a roadway and a collapsed culvert. At the site of the spill, the system designed to contain the sediment is still in place: a floating yellow barrier. Today, it’s closer to shore and smaller in size compared to three months earlier — Sturm pulls out his phone to share a photo from the time of the spill.

Sturm, a white-goateed man who looks somehow built for coal mining, says another incident in April was the result of ice blocking outflow from the mine’s long stretch of ponds. Known as Coal Creek, the long, narrow series of ponds are where debris and contaminants settle as the water slowly moves through them, ultimately discharging into a small waterway. The ice, combined with snowmelt and heavy rain, overwhelmed Coal Creek, and led to the spill.

Those spills involved sediment. And even without some of the chemical pollution concerns experienced by other mines, it can still have an impact. Sediment-laden riverbeds can smother habitat and impact fish and insect reproduction, and there is always the risk of contamination from pollutants including arsenic and heavy metals.

The company is also under investigation by the Alberta Energy Regulator for an incident related to a spill from the same area in 2025, but details have not been released.

In a follow-up email after the tour, Heroux says Westmoreland is working on “permanent engineering improvements” to the facility and says the company measures water quality after a spill. Heroux says conditions remained within regulatory limits following the spill in April and noted the company monitors surface water at 47 locations throughout the mine, as well as groundwater, streamflow and wetland conditions around the site.

“​​We also sample 20 additional locations upstream and downstream of the mine and exceed a number of the minimum monitoring requirements contained in its approvals,” Heroux wrote.

The tour pauses at the cavernous Pit 26, the only area of the mine that is currently active, a deep hole in the earth with a massive digger pulling loads from its lowest depths. There’s also a stop at the storage area where coal is washed prior to shipping to Japan. Further from the active areas, a short walk down a gravel road leads to a lush-looking lake that was once a mining pit — known as an end-pit lake, it’s part of a reclamation process those leading the tour seem particularly proud of and eager to highlight.

That former mining pit, now called Sterling Lake, is open to the public, accessed via a hike and stocked with fish for recreational angling. It has not yet been certified as reclaimed nor has the land officially been passed back to the province.

Love jokes he’s been sampling drinking water for years to ensure it’s clean.

Is a better coal mine … good?

Driving through the mine, Love talks about the grizzly sow, Betty, who dens nearby and passes her unique colouring from one generation of cubs to the next. Out the window, the landscape shifts from areas replanted with fir trees, to deep pits and cuts in the land. Across the valley, clearcuts dot the hillside, which those on the tour are quick to point out are the result of logging operations and not mining — another industry, a separate problem, within view. 

The impacts on the land are clear and immense. The emissions when the product is finally burned, meanwhile, are out of sight.

It’s clear the staff at Coal Valley who spoke with The Narwhal care about the work, the site and the surrounding environment. The willingness of the company to reach out is critical to understand the nuance of its operations and its failures. 

The company is eager to point to how quickly it reports and responds to spills, and explain how those spills aren’t an apocalyptic deluge of wastewater sludge. That may be true, but it’s also clear the mine struggles to contain water not meant to flow into waterways.

The information provided by the Alberta Energy Regulator through its compliance dashboard is often unclear about the impacts of coal mining incidents. There are few details linked to most infractions beyond “sediment runoff and sediment to waterbody,” or a figure on how much sediment was measured on a given month or day. 

The regulator is also sparing in the use of enforcement powers, including fines, to deter violations. Only about $1.1 million in fines has been doled out since 2013 and more than 80 per cent were for one major incident.

Following the mine tour, Heroux said the regulator’s data can be misread. 

“The [Alberta Energy Regulator] compliance dashboard records reportable events and regulatory activity, but it does not necessarily explain why an event occurred, its environmental significance, the company’s response or the outcome of the regulator’s review,” he wrote. “Please remember that those distinctions are important when evaluating the figures.”

Not far from Coal Valley, mine operator CST Coal has been fined $53,000 for spills that took place over the past three years, and for failing to quickly report those infractions to the regulator. In one instance it waited days. The context and the failure to report contributed to the penalties, according to the regulator. 

CST Coal did not respond to questions from The Narwhal.

Driving home from the tour down Highway 40, following the length of the mine site invisible over an adjacent mound, there’s a comfort in knowing that it’s still possible to talk across divides and see firsthand where assumptions fall apart, and where they do not. 

But at the end of the day, there remains a lingering question the industry might not be able to overcome: given the impacts on the land, on water and on emissions that cause air pollution and exacerbate climate change, is it enough that a coal mine is striving to be better than its peers?

Updated on Sept. 3, 2026, at 2:35 p.m. MT: This story has been updated to reflect the fact that coal-fired electricity has been phased out in Alberta, not across all of the Prairies as was implied in a previous version.

Updated on Sept. 4, 2026, at 10:05 a.m. MT: This story has been updated to correct a photo caption that misidentified a plant as a dandelion.

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 has introduced new rules that will allow landowners to destroy broad categories of wetlands across the province without seeking government approval. It’s a move the province calls common sense and critics call worrying. 

“What I’m seeing is what I like to refer to as policy-based evidence making,” said Tracy Scott, who recently retired from his role as head of industry and government relations with Ducks Unlimited Canada, a wetland conservation organization.

The changes to the province’s Water Act will allow farmers to remove what are known as temporary and seasonal wetlands on private land to improve crop efficiency. Temporary wetlands are covered by water for a few weeks in spring or after a heavy rainfall, according to the government — they can be dips in the landscape where water naturally pools. Seasonal wetlands hold water for most of the growing season but dry out by the fall.

Previously, landowners had to pay for a detailed assessment of the impacts of such moves, and pay for wetland replacement costs. 

“Farmers should not have to spend thousands of dollars and wait on government approval to carry out routine work on their own land,” Grant Hunter, the minister of environment and protected areas, said in a news release. “We are restoring private property rights and getting government out of the way where it doesn’t need to be.”

That sort of language irks Kennedy Halvorson, a conservation specialist at the Alberta Wilderness Association.

“It’s a bit of deceptive messaging, kind of depicting these wetlands as if they have no value, they’re just a hindrance for our producers,” she said. 

“The reality is that these wetlands have a lot of ecological value. They’re basically the only other sort of water bodies that exist other than the rivers.”

Halvorson said there is plenty of scientific research to show wetlands help retain water in dry years, help prevent flooding, filter things like pesticides and herbicides, recharge groundwater and provide habitat. 

She says the changes put the vast majority of the remaining prairie wetlands at risk — approximately 94 per cent.

Wetland ‘benefits accrue to society’

Wetlands are among the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. They’re home to countless species of birds, bugs and animals. But rapid human development, including agriculture, has ravaged many wetlands.

Globally, experts estimate more than half the world’s wetlands are gone. In Canada, approximately 70 per cent of historic wetlands have been degraded or dried up. Three-quarters of what are known as prairie pothole wetlands have been lost to agricultural developments and some areas have lost 90 per cent of their wetland cover.

Alberta’s changes apply to a broad swath of wetlands classified as “non-permanent.”

“Whether wetlands are large or small, temporary or permanent, they all make a positive difference,” reads Alberta’s landowner guide to wetland policy. 

And they can be a nuisance for farmers trying to operate large machinery and increase crop yields.

“The changes will make it easier for farmers to cultivate, seed, spray, ditch, drain and infill on their own cropland without going through an unnecessary approval process,” the government said in a press release.

These types of wetlands cause “production inefficiencies,” Sarah Weigum, the chair of Alberta British Columbia Seed Growers Association, said in the government’s press release announcing the changes. “By managing these short-lived wet areas and reducing their impacts earlier in the season, it allows farmers to have greater efficiency in the field.” 

Scott, a farmer himself near Camrose, Alta., says working around wetlands is “not fun,” and he can understand some of the frustration for landowners. 

“The challenge here is that the benefits accrue to society, by and large,” he says. “The landowners bear the cost.”

Wetlands do provide agricultural benefits, too: they provide habitat for pollinators, nutrients for crops, pest control and contaminant filtering. They store carbon and help manage water flow during droughts and floods. Healthy wetlands absorb phosphorus and nitrogen, helping manage explosions of algal blooms.

In the past, provincial governments relied heavily on research and consultation to develop policy to protect wetlands, something Scott said this government has turned away from. 

“We do have a policy that I was heavily involved in, in 2013, that involved extensive consultation as well as review of the available science, of which there is a lot,” Scott said. 

“This change is, in my opinion, based on political favour.”

The office of the minister of Environment and Protected Areas and the office of the minister of Agriculture and Irrigation did not respond to questions from The Narwhal by publication time.

Halvorson said another element of the changes may mean wetlands that were established as part of the province’s wetland replacement program, which forced landowners or companies who wanted to destroy a wetland to pay to construct a new wetland in another location, could also now be destroyed without penalty.

“How do we ensure that those wetlands that have been funded to be restored or replaced aren’t now just also at risk of being lost or degraded?” she wonders. 

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.

Records from the Alberta Energy Regulator show coal mines struggle to prevent discharges of potentially harmful sediments into waterways, raising questions about impacts on water and wildlife as the Alberta government pushes to open more land to coal mining along the Rockies.

The Narwhal analyzed data from the regulator from the past three years and found there have been 42 incidents since 2023 tied to existing coal mines located in west-central Alberta, along the foothills and eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. All of those incidents are related to impacts on water. Many of the incidents were related to the release of sediment into nearby lakes and streams, which can be toxic for fish and other aquatic wildlife.

Of the 42 incidents, only six — 14 per cent — resulted in enforcement actions by the provincial regulator.

Going back to 2013, there have been 23 provincial enforcement actions levied against coal mines in the province, with total fines of just under $1.1 million. 

Almost all of the fines were tied to one incident, the Obed mine disaster, which dumped 670 million litres of wastewater into the Athabasca River about an hour east of Jasper, Alta. The mine’s owner was ordered to pay $925,000 in provincial fines (and $3.5 million in federal penalties), and the mine is no longer operating. 

Of the existing mines, Coal Valley, owned by Westmoreland Coal, is tied to the most incidents — 16 in total — in the past three years. The Coal Valley mine, near Hinton, Alta., produces thermal coal, used to create electricity and primarily burned in Japanese factories. But the mine’s owners say numbers alone do not tell the whole story. 

“One should consider the number of reportable events alongside their causes, environmental significance, the company’s monitoring and reporting practices, its co-operation with regulators and the corrective actions taken,” a spokesperson said in response to questions from The Narwhal. “This provides a better context for what is really happening at our mine sites.”

Coal Valley does not produce high levels of selenium

Westmoreland was the only company to respond to questions about regulatory compliance in Alberta. It also invited The Narwhal to tour the Coal Valley mine to provide more context for some of the incidents.

A significant distinction the company was eager to highlight was the fact the coal produced at its mine does not contain high levels of selenium — a claim backed up by independent environmental assessments commissioned by the company and submitted to the regulator. Selenium is a key chemical pollutant concern for most existing and potential mines along the rocky spine of the province. 

Coal mining can produce selenium, which is harmful to human and fish health if it accumulates in high quantities, as well as toxins such as arsenic, a key concern in the ongoing debate about opening new mines in the headwaters that feed rivers, lakes and streams across Alberta, Saskatchewan and into Manitoba. 

Groundwater and surface water assessments submitted to the regulator appear to show most water at Coal Valley is within guidelines for a host of contaminants, including selenium. 

Almost all of the incidents tied to Coal Valley are for exceedances of “total suspended solids” — an overabundance of debris and sediment — including one infraction in April in which the company was almost triple the allowable limit. 

The company said it was hit with heavy snow-melt that overwhelmed its systems. It also said it conducts extensive testing to evaluate potential effects and that those results “remained within applicable regulatory parameters following the event.”

The regulator, in response to questions from The Narwhal, says it will conduct its own testing “when required for enforcement activities.”

Climate change could exacerbate run-off and have significant impacts: retired government scientists

The Alberta government has waffled on its coal policy since first reopening Alberta’s Rocky Mountains to coal mining in 2020, prompting immense public backlash. It has since reinstated the earlier ban, but not before some exploration projects were approved, then it suspended those approvals and finally rescinded those suspensions to allow them to go forward as it prepares a new coal policy — anticipated this fall. A committee sought input from Albertans on a new policy in 2021.

As part of that process, some experts rang alarm bells related to heavy snow-melt akin to that experienced at Coal Valley.

Weather events overwhelming mine infrastructure is something a group of retired provincial government scientists warned about in a submission to Alberta’s coal committee.

“High snowfall run-off and major rainfall events have happened on a regular basis, often causing flows that were well above the levels that regulatory agencies and companies anticipated, included in modelling and for which infrastructure was designed and built,” wrote the five scientists. “This will be exacerbated by climate change making historic rainfall, snowfall and streamflow data increasingly out of date for planning and engineering purposes.”

Those same scientists warn that sediment and the chemicals used to treat waste “can be toxic to fish.” Sediment-laden waterbodies can also impact fish spawning and rearing, as well as aquatic insect production — food for fish. 

Katie Morrison, the executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in southern Alberta, says there’s a lot of focus on selenium because it has such a big impact and because no mine has ever successfully prevented it from entering waterbodies. 

“I don’t think there’s too much focus on selenium, but I do think the fact that there are many other contaminants that are released is sort of lost in that conversation a little bit,” she says. 

Westmoreland says it “conducts approximately 8,000 surface-water sampling events” each year at 47 different locations around the sprawling mine, as well as groundwater, wetland and biological health monitoring. 

“We also sample 20 additional locations upstream and downstream of the mine and exceed a number of the minimum monitoring requirements contained in approvals,” the company wrote after a tour of the mine site.

Coal Valley is not alone in releasing sediment into Alberta waterways. 

‘Enforcement action may not be required’

In 2023, CST Canada Coal Ltd., which operates the Grande Cache coal mine, released wastewater into the Smoky River for 17 hours and was ultimately fined $10,000 by the provincial regulator for the release and for failure to report it for more than seven hours. 

Again, the issue was total suspended solids, but the regulator makes it clear in its report about the incident that it’s not just a question of murky water. 

The run-off can release harmful chemicals even as it settles, and fine sediment can harm fish through gill abrasion and behavioural changes.

CST was also fined $23,000 in 2024 for dumping mine wastewater into the Smoky River after a sensor malfunctioned when a pond overflowed. The company did not report the incident for five days. 

The same company was fined $20,000 by the regulator in July for another incident in 2024, which dumped at least 1 million kilograms of sediment into Sheep Creek, although the exact quantity is not known. The total suspended solids were 1,920 times the regulatory limit on the day of the release. According to the regulator, the company didn’t report the incident for more than 22 hours and when it did, it withheld important details. 

The causes of the spill included high rainfall and “known drainage problems” at the mine. 

An inspection by the regulator showed “elevated levels of metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons” with potential risks to bull trout spawning habitat, although that risk was listed as “unlikely.” 

The Alberta Energy Regulator, in response to questions emailed by The Narwhal, said it takes into account several factors when determining whether to fine a coal company for violations. 

“If the operator is compliant and responsive in early stages to mitigate and address incidents, further action may not be required,” wrote an unnamed spokesperson. “Also, if there is no emergency phase and little or no impact to waterbodies or wildlife, enforcement action may not be required.”

The regulator will issue orders to companies to fix an existing issue or try to mitigate impacts, issue warning letters to force compliance or, as in one case involving the Obed mine disaster, prosecute a company in court. 

“The tools we use depend on the significance of the noncompliance,” the spokesperson wrote. “We keep a record of every company’s compliance and enforcement history. If a company purposely (or repeatedly) fails to follow the rules, our enforcement actions will escalate, and the consequences will become more severe.”

Morrison says it’s not about simply punishing companies for non-compliance. 

“I don’t think we’re saying, ‘Hey, we need to immediately close down the operating mines,’ but we do need to still hold those operating mines to standards,” she says, adding there also has to be a clear path from an incident to enforcement. 

“But I think more than that, we don’t want to just penalize companies for infractions, we want to prevent those things in the first place.”

The chemistry of coal

James C. Hower has been studying coal for more than 50 years and is a research professor at the University of Kentucky. He says there’s a lot to consider when assessing the impact of coal mining on the environment, including the type and grade of coal, as well as individual companies and the regulations in place. 

“We’ve got plenty of examples in the Appalachians of people who have mining companies that, in general, are good operators and seem to be doing things the right way, and then something goes wrong,” he says. 

He cites flooding as a major risk to a well-ordered mine operation. And while he doesn’t study Alberta in particular, he says concerns over water quality are legitimate, particularly for ranchers in the south of the province, where new mines are being proposed. 

A key factor, he says, is ensuring contamination does not get out of control so that reclamation is possible.

“If it’s done wrong in the first place and things get out of hand, you got a big problem,” Hower says.

Land-use planning is supposed to precede new coal policy: conservation advocate

The province is expected to unveil its new coal policy this fall, outlining new rules for where and when a new coal mine can operate. The policy is the outcome of years of on-again off-again restrictions on coal mining in the Rockies, particularly in sensitive areas to the south. 

The policy follows public consultations by a government commission that made numerous recommendations including the need for robust land-use planning, which considers cumulative impacts from other industries and users, ahead of any coal policy that could allow new mines to operate. 

“That hasn’t happened,” Morrison says. “So they are already going ahead with a coal policy without that land-use planning.”

She says the risks to the landscape, the environment and even to coal companies, is too great to allow new mines in the province. 

“It also doesn’t make sense from a company side to say to companies, ‘Yes, you can come and pitch a project here,’ knowing that it’s actually not going to be compatible down the road if our regulatory system was working as it should be.”

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 can issue grid alerts when electricity demand threatens to outstrip supply — i.e. there’s risk of a blackout. This can happen for a number of reasons. 

A warming planet, with warmer summer months, can have you reaching for the AC remote. Our phones need charging and fridges need to stay plugged in. Add to the grid the data centres Alberta wants to build so we can ask our AI agent of choice to respond to our emails. The list goes on and on. 

And as much as the province would like to say it’s because of renewable energy projects, the data tells a different story. Prairies reporter Drew Anderson breaks it down in our latest video.

Want to make sure you don’t miss our latest work? Subscribe to our channel on YouTube and follow us on TikTok.

Thanks for watching!

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.

Editor’s note: After The Narwhal published a piece about Alberta wildland firefighters forming a peer-support network, we received an email from Matthew Brackenreed. “I’ve been meaning to send this out for a while now — the recent article gave me the courage,” Matthew wrote. Below is what he shared with us.

I spent nearly two decades serving as an Alberta wildland firefighter, responding to some of the most challenging and dangerous situations our province faces.

I am writing because I believe there is an important conversation that needs to happen about occupational post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cumulative trauma and the realities many firefighters and first responders face after their careers are affected by psychological injuries.

For years, I did what many firefighters do. I showed up for work, responded to emergencies and pushed through difficult experiences without fully understanding the impact they were having on me. Like many in emergency services, I believed I could handle it. Looking back, I now realize that the effects of repeated exposure to trauma were building for years.

Yet despite responding to emergencies and protecting communities from wildfire, provincial wildland firefighters do not receive all of the same legal recognition and presumptive protections afforded to some other first responders in Alberta. It is a distinction I never expected would become so important to me until I became injured myself.

While wildland firefighters can still have occupational psychological injury claims accepted, we do not fall under the same statutory definition of “first responder” used to provide certain presumptive workers’ compensation protections to municipal firefighters, police officers and paramedics. For someone already struggling with the effects of a psychological injury, that distinction can add another layer of difficulty to an already challenging process.

Today, I live with severe PTSD resulting from prolonged exposure to traumatic events throughout my career fighting fires.

PTSD is often associated with a single catastrophic event, but that is not always how it develops. For many firefighters and first responders, trauma can accumulate over years of service. The effects may remain hidden for a long time before eventually becoming overwhelming.

The injury is often invisible to others.

People may see someone who looks physically healthy while not realizing they are struggling with anxiety, panic, nightmares, hypervigilance, memory difficulties, emotional exhaustion and significant disruptions to daily life. Relationships, careers, finances and personal identity can all be affected.

One of the challenges I have encountered is that many systems were originally designed around physical injuries or isolated incidents. Occupational PTSD, especially when caused by years of cumulative exposure, does not always fit neatly into those models.

My concern extends beyond my own situation.

I worry about the many firefighters, first responders and workers who may be experiencing similar struggles but are hesitant to come forward. The culture of emergency services often encourages resilience and perseverance, which are important qualities, but those same qualities can sometimes cause people to delay seeking help until their symptoms become severe.

By the time many firefighters finally ask for support, they may already be facing significant challenges in their personal and professional lives.

I am grateful for the health care professionals, family members and supporters who have helped me through this journey. Their support has been essential. At the same time, my experience has shown me how important it is that we continue improving awareness, education and support for occupational PTSD.

As wildfire seasons grow longer and more demanding, the mental health impacts on those who respond to these emergencies deserve greater attention. Protecting communities is vital, but we must also ensure that the people who dedicate their lives to that work are not forgotten when they are injured.

I am sharing my story because I believe occupational PTSD deserves greater public understanding and because I hope it encourages meaningful discussion about how we support those who serve in high-trauma professions.

What is almost as devastating as the injury itself is the lack of meaningful support available once a worker’s life begins to fall apart. On paper, there are programs and systems meant to help, but in reality I have found myself and my family trapped in a maze of delays, bureaucracy and uncertainty while my health has continued to decline. 

We have spent countless hours fighting for answers, advocating for basic needs and trying to navigate a system that often feels more focused on process than people. When someone is suffering from a psychological workplace injury, they shouldn’t have to fight another battle just to access support. No family should be left feeling isolated, exhausted and without a clear path forward while trying to survive the consequences of an injury sustained in service to their community.

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.