The Alberta government has barred the Oilsands Environmental Coalition from hearings on a proposed new oilsands development by Southern Pacific Resource Corp., even after a similar decision last fall was overturned by a judge.

Conservationists say the decision only makes clearer the Alberta government's tendency to shut down public dialogue on resource development. "The government hasn't learned its lesson from last time," said Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, one of the groups in the coalition.

Dyer said the coalition will be appealing the second ruling, reports the Canadian Press.

Alberta Environment first denied the coalition standing to participate in hearings about a development on the MacKay River in northern Alberta in 2012, which would expand an existing steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) project. The expansion would result in the extraction of an additional 24,000 barrels per day (bpd) of bitumen.

The Alberta government argued that the group was not directly affected by the project, even though members of the Pembina Institute have a recreational lease in the area, and 45 others live nearby in Fort McMurray.

The coalition applied for a judicial review of the decision. During the process, a 2009 Alberta Environment memo was discovered that singled out the coalition, which includes Pembina and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association, as "not simple to work with" and as having published "negative media on the oil sands."

Justice Richard Marceau invalidated the government's decision on the basis of the 2009 memo, writing in his statement that the law does not permit the Alberta government to "reject statements of concern from those persons or groups who voice negative statements about proposed oil sands development."

"The process of identifying who is 'directly affected' should not be decided by the application of rigid rules," Marceau wrote, noting that there would be no environmentalist voices present at the Southern Pacific hearing if the coalition were barred.

Regardless, in a March 27 letter to the coalition, Alberta Environment official Kevin Wilkinson repeated the very reasoning that got the 2012 decision overturned.

Wilkinson wrote that the coalition is not a legal entity and cannot therefore be considered directly affected, saying that the recreational lease "is no more compelling than the ability for any Albertan to recreate on public land." He added that homes in Fort McMurray, 45 kilometres from the development, were too distant for residents to be considered directly affected.

Wilkinson also assured coalition members that their concerns would be "considered by the designated director, even if the person who submitted the concern is found not to be directly affected."

Dyer noted that the coalition has participated in many other provincial hearings before, and continues to be granted standing at joint federal-provincial hearings. He said that the government's decision is indicative of a pattern of tighter restrictions on who gets to voice concern to regulators about the oilsands.

Earlier this year, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) cancelled the public hearing on the Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.'s proposed Kirby Expansion Project after none of the groups that applied to participate were allowed standing. Statements of concern were filed by the Oilsands Environmental Coalition and several First Nations, all of whom were denied. The Kirby Expansion Project, another SAGD project, was subsequently "referred by the hearing panel AER staff for further review and dispensation without hearing."

Nigel Bankes, professor of resource law at the University of Calgary, called the government's tests for deciding standing at hearings "narrow and stringent."

Spokeswoman Katrina Bluetchen said that there has been no regulatory change at Alberta Environment. "Nothing has changed," she said. "It was deemed (the coalition) was not directly affected."

The government has kept information on how many groups have been denied standing in hearings restricted. An access to information request put in by the Canadian Press has been at Alberta Environment for six months without any result.

Dyer thinks Alberta Environment's actions harm the ability of the province to evaluate the impact of resource development, saying that "the government should err on the side of allowing people to speak and collecting input" to help make responsible decisions.

Image Credit: Kris Krug via Flickr

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

A draft version of a new investigative report released this week by Global Forest Watch and Treeline Ecological Research argues the series of underground leaks currently releasing a mixture of tar sands bitumen and water into a surrounding wetland and forest on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range is related to a similar set of spills caused by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) in-situ operations in 2009.

The cause of the 2009 seepage was never determined and details of an investigation by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), then called the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), weren’t made public until last year, four years after the initial incident.

The new report, called “CNRL’s Persistent 2013 Bitumen Releases Near Cold Lake, Alberta: Facts, Unanswered Questions, and Implications,” takes aim at the AER for allowing certain in-situ, or underground, tar sands extraction technologies to continue without adequately addressing “major unknowns.” The independent investigation reveals the AER continually fails to protect the public interest in relation to these spills and that both industry and government demonstrate 'dysfunction' in their lack of transparency with the public.

CNRL, the company responsible for both the 2009 and current leaks, uses a process called High Pressure Cyclic Steam Stimulation (HPCSS) to fracture underlying bedrock in order to extract bitumen under pressure. HPCSS uses extremely high pressures and temperatures to create underground fractures allowing for the migration of bitumen. According to the ERCB’s investigation of the 2009 incident, these underground fractures were offered as a potential explanation for the uncontrolled release of bitumen above ground.

Despite multiple investigations, regulators and industry were unable to definitively identify the cause of the 2009 incident. The new report’s two authors, Peter Lee and Dr. Kevin Timoney, suggest this lack of certainty makes the company’s continued operation in the area, and use of HPCSS technology, inexplicable.

“In light of the unquantified risks to the bitumen reservoir, groundwater, and the adjacent ecosystems, the decision by the ERCB to allow HPCSS to continue during and after the [2009] incident was unjustified by the available evidence,” the report states.

There are “spatial and temporal” reasons for believing the two incidents are related, claim the authors. An analysis of the time and locations of the seepage shows a consistent pattern of leaks, each migrating outwards from a central location where the 2009 incident occurred.

Although the causes of the incidents remain “unclear,” they write the seepage is “known to involve migration of bitumen emulsion through a network of vertical and horizontal fissures.”

A map of the affected areas in 2013 from the Global Forest Watch report.

“Due diligence dictates that all HPCSS operations should be suspended until major unknowns are addressed. If not, continued use of HPCSS may result in large and unpredictable costs, and those costs will not be borne by the energy companies but by future generations,” the report states.

Crystal Lameman, member of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation whose traditional territory the seepage is within, says the ongoing situation calls into question the role and ultimate purpose of the AER. “What is their job, really?” Lameman asks. “What is their job and what is their agenda?”

The AER’s role depends upon their ability to regulate industry, she says. “They are supposed to be monitoring them and ensuring they are following through with the proper protocols, policies and procedures,” she said.

Crystal Lameman of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation. Credit Emma Pullman.

Lameman says the AER’s inability to prevent multiple releases of bitumen into the environment is difficult to understand.

“Are they becoming deliberately ignorant to what industry is doing? Are they turning a blind eye? I guess I’m asking these questions because I can’t think of any other reason these thing like the CNRL spill can happen, or not be stopped, or reported at a quicker rate. It causes concern for me as someone who lives in a tar sands impacted community.”

For Lameman, the ongoing incident in Cold Lake is a part of a longer-running pattern.

“Since they’ve changed their name from the ERCB to the AER, I’ve seen nothing but a bad track record in the way they report, in the way they provide comment, the lack of expediting information to local First Nations people. What I’ve found is that we’re often the last ones to find out about these spills.”

The Global Forest Watch report also criticizes both the AER and CNRL for failing to communicate adequately with the media and the general public. The lack of information, says Lameman, leaves impacted communities guessing.

“What next? Are we going to find out that the spill from ’09 has been ongoing since ’09? And the AER, at that time the ERCB, didn’t tell us? Are we going to find out next that CNRL was pumping at higher pressures than they were supposed to?” she asked. The question of dangerously high injection pressures is a concern also raised by Timoney and Lee in the investigative report.

For Lameman, the events on CNRL’s site bring to light the inherent dangers of extracting bitumen deposits with in-situ technologies. “We’re putting our guards down when we believe the AER when it says that in-situ and SAGD are safer methods. How? How are these safe?” she asked. “The more spills that happen, [the AER] is proven otherwise.”

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.

According to new figures released by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) the total amount of bitumen emulsion – a mixture of tar sands heavy crude and water – released on Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.’s (CNRL) Cold Lake Site is now more than 1.5 million litres, or the equivalent to more than 9600 barrels of oil.

The reported amount has grow from an initially estimated 4,450 litres or 28 cubic metres in late June, according the AER’s website.

The figures, made public by the AER, are reported to the regulator from CNRL, prompting onlookers to raise concerns about industry self-reporting.

Bob Curran from the Alberta Energy Regulator says that it is normal for companies to report spill volumes and rates in incidents like these. Although, he adds, “these aren’t numbers that we’re saying we’ve 100 per cent verified but these are numbers that are being reported to us. I think there’s an important caveat on that.”

The seepage, which reportedly began in early 2013, although wasn’t officially reported to the public until late May, is occurring on sites where CNRL uses High Pressure Cyclic Steam Stimulation (HPCSS) to recover bitumen from deep reservoirs. The process uses a combination of high pressures and temperatures to fracture the rock surrounding bitumen deposits. Super hot steam melts and pressurizes the bitumen, allowing it to surface up a wellbore.

Currently, on at least 4 CNRL sites, pressurized bitumen is leaking to the surface through uncontrolled fissures in the ground. Both the AER and CNRL are unable to explain the cause of the spill or say when it might stop.

The AER didn't immediately announce the incidents to the public. The AER's Bob Curran told Postmedia News, “The first three incidents were quite small compared to this last one. There were no public impacts, there were negligible environmental impacts. No real trigger to put out a news release.”

Crystal Lameman, member of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation whose territory includes the Cold Lake spill site, says she's frustrated with the AER's tendency to minimize the incident and its impact.

"The mere fact that they are the ones that determine what is minimal when it doesn’t directly impact them – that concerns me. I’ll be the judge of what is deemed minimal when toxic water is spilling out on the land in our traditional territory. So just because it may at that time have not affected a human being, it affects those beings that cannot speak for themselves and those beings that we have the constitutionally protected right to fish and hunt. But if they’re drinking toxic water and breathing toxic air how can they guarantee to us that those animals are in their purest form?" she said.

"I have a real issue with the way that they determine what is minimal, what is of concern, what is a lot, what it a little. That concerns me because thus far, since they’ve changed their name from the ERCB to the AER, I’ve seen nothing but a bad track record in the way they report, in the way they provide comment, the lack of expediting information to local First Nations people. What I’ve found is that we’re often the last ones to find out about these spills."

The released caused the death of 2 beavers, 49 birds, 105 amphibians, and 46 small mammals, the AER reports. Clean up and containment efforts are still ongoing and the early stages of a subsurface investigation are underway.

The AER and Alberta’s Energy and Sustainable Resource Development have launched provincial investigations and recently Environment Canada announced a federal investigation is also being undertaken.

Image Credit: Emma Pullman/CNRL

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.

New figures released yesterday from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) show a concerted effort is still underway to clean up the growing amount of bitumen emulsion – a mixture of tar sands oil and water – that is pooling in a forested area surrounding Canada Natural Resource Ltd.’s Cold Lake project.

The cause of the seepage, which shows no sign of subsiding, has yet to be determined.

AER’s updated volumes show that the total amount of bitumen emulsion recovered on four separate spill sites amounts to 1444.4 cubic metres, a volume equivalent to 1.4 million litres of oil.

In addition, cleanup crews have removed 494 cubic metres of oily vegetation from the forested landscape and an additional 1049.62 metric tonnes – equivalent to 2.3 million pounds – of “impacted soils.”

The AER’s previous figures, released August 29th, stated 1275.7 cubic metres of bitumen emulsion had been recovered to date, the equivalent of 1.2 million litres.

Between the dates of August 29th and September 6th roughly 168,800 litres of bitumen emulsion were recovered, equaling around 1062 barrels of oil equivalent, or an average of 150 barrels per day.

CNRL, the company responsible for the in-situ operations that led to the seepage, put out a release dated August 25-31 that claims the rate of bitumen emulsion release amounts to less than 20 barrels of bitumen emulsion per day.

The disparity between CNRL’s figures – a release of 20 barrels per day – and the AER recovery figures – of 150 barrels per day – is due to unrecovered bitumen emulsion on site, according to CNRL public affairs advisor Zoe Addington. CNRL is cleaning up more per day than is currently leaking, she said.

Original CNRL images released to reporter Emma Pullman show oil pooled high in a forested area, presenting both the company and provincial regulators with an extraordinarily difficult cleanup.

The CNRL statement also claims the company is “focusing on a reduced impact area of 13.5 hectares, a 35% reduction” since original reporting.

The AER report states 20.7 hectares have been impacted from the ongoing release.

CNRL is still working to recover bitumen, remove soil, manage contaminated water and expose fissures where bitumen emulsion is migrating to the surface on three of the leakage sites, says the AER. The company is also recovering bitumen, agitating and skimming oil from the surface of a water body and removing vegetation from the fourth site.

The AER also reports that to date 2 beavers, 43 birds, 104 amphibians and 40 small mammals are deceased as a result of the release.

CNRL’s latest statement reads, “unfortunately some animal fatalities have occurred and three beavers, seventeen birds and two small mammals are being cared for at a Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre…”

As part of an ongoing subsurface investigation CNRL is drilling hydrogeological and delineation wells around the affected locations and has cited “mechanical failures” as the presumed cause of the continuous leaks, although the AER recently told DeSmog Canada the cause remains unknown.

CNRL was responsible for a similar release in 2009 that was likely caused by underground fractures, according to a report by the Energy Resources Conservation Board, the former AER.

According to Cara Tobin, spokesperson for the AER, the current spill “is in the same operational area” as the 2009 release. “These are releases coming up from basically cracks in the ground, not from the well pad,” she said. Although, she adds, it is too early to say what might be the cause of this particular series of underground leaks.

“We do not have the technical data or evidence to verify what that cause might be…We will determine that through our investigation process,” she said.

Last week Environment Canada announced a federal investigation into the seepage is underway alongside two separate investigations at the provincial level.

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

It has been three months since the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) first reported on the subsurface spills occurring at Canada Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) operations on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, 300 kilometres northeast of Edmonton. Yesterday Environment Canada told Postmedia’s Mike De Souza that the federal department “is currently assessing the situation with respect to federal environmental laws within its jurisdiction, and has opened an investigation.”

The underground leaks, discovered on four separate well pads, have been releasing a mixture of bitumen emulsion – a mixture of oil and water – uncontrollably since at least May, although AER reports suggest the spill has been ongoing for much longer. The regulator forced CNRL to suspend its high pressure cyclic steam stimulation (HPCSS) operations in one project area “earlier this year,” according to an AER incident report released in July.

HPCSS, also known as Huff and Puff technology, forces steam underground at extremely high pressures over prolonged periods of time. The high pressure steam softens underlying bitumen, a dense heavy crude and sand mixture found beneath large regions of the boreal forest, causing the viscous oil to separate from the sand. The pressure forms cracks in the bedrock, allowing the bitumen emulsion to flow through the wellbore and up to the surface.

The high pressures used in the process may be a factor in the underground leaks.

In a recent statement CNRL stated the company “believes the cause of the bitumen emulsion seepage is mechanical failures of wellbores in the vicinity of the controlled areas. We are in the process of identifying and investigating these wellbores.”

On Friday, AER spokesperson Bob Curran told DeSmog Canada, “we haven’t determined the cause of the spill at this time.”

According to AER figures released yesterday, 1275.7 cubic metres of bitumen emulsion have been recovered on all four spill sites. That equals just over 8023 barrels of oil or more than 1.2 million litres of oil. For comparison, the most expensive onshore oil spill in US history, when Enbridge’s Line 6B ruptured near the Kalamazoo River in Marshall, Michigan, released 3 million litres.

The AER announced a “subsurface investigation” was ongoing on August 20, 2013, although it is unrelated to any investigation currently being carried out by Environment Canada.

“When we say a subsurface investigation what that means is our investigation is focused on what subsurface problems have caused this spill to arise. There’s no category of subsurface investigations – it’s a generic terms that’s applied,” he said.

Both the AER and Alberta’s Energy and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) are investigating the spill, says Curran.

“[AER] is looking at the source of the problem and the company’s actions as they pertain to the issue. ESRD is looking more at impacts,” he said. “Environment Canada hasn’t contacted us about their investigation.”

Curran said he is unable at this time to comment on the scope of Environment Canada’s investigation or whether it will overlap with current efforts of AER or ESRD.

“Certainly our investigation is complimentary to ESRD’s on the provincial side,” he said.

Issues Manager Nikki Booth says ESRD is “working cooperatively” with Environment Canada although “the investigations will be complete separate because different pieces of legislation or contraventions are being investigated.”

AER, ESRD and Environment Canada each have their own independent investigation, she said. “We work with AER on theirs and they on ours – so it’s all very cooperative.”

“We have the EPEA (Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act) and the Water Act,” said Booth, which are the relevant pieces of legislation for the ESRD investigation. 

ESRD is not releasing much information at this time because the investigation is ongoing, says Booth. “We want it to be a fair and thorough process. Once the investigation is wrapped up there will be more information we can provide.”

According to an updated incident report released yesterday, August 29, “2 beavers, 40 birds, 101 amphibians, and 33 small mammals [are] deceased” as a result of the ongoing spill.

Image Credit: Emma Pullman

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 ongoing trouble on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range in North Eastern Alberta, where oil company Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL) has numerous in situ oil recovery sites, has yet to show signs of abatement.

Underground oil spills on CNRL’s Primrose facility have been leaking bitumen emulsion into the muskeg, waterways and forest that surround the site for nearly three months.

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) says the total volume of bitumen emulsion recovered from four separate sites where the seepage is ongoing is now 1275.7 cubic metres, the equivalent of 8024 barrels of oil or 1.27 million litres.

The original volume of the spill was reported as 28 cubic metres.

In addition, 397 cubic metres of “oily vegetation” has been removed from one of the sites numbered 09-21, and 5096.66 metric tones of “impacted soils” have been removed from the other three.

“Clean up continues on all four sites,” says the AER in an updated incident report released yesterday.

“Bitumen recovery at the source, skimming of other areas within water body and vegetation cutting continues” at site 09-21.

“Bitumen recovery, soil removal, fissure exposure, surface water management and containment efforts continue” on the three additional sites.

CNRL, the company responsible for the spill, released a press statement on July 31 stating “each location has been secured and clean-up, recovery and reclamation activities are well underway.”

Last week Cara Tobin from the Alberta Energy Regulator said, “the spill is still ongoing. There is still bitumen coming up from the ground…it is not under control [because] bitumen is still coming up…”

She provided no comment Wednesday, indicating a revised incident report would be published Friday, August 15.

That report states “2 beavers, 31 birds, 82 amphibians, and 31 small mammals” have died as a result of the spill.

“Wildlife fencing and deterrents are installed and CNRL continues to monitor all four sites for wildlife and impacted wildlife.”

The exact cause of the uncontrolled spill has yet to be determined. CNRL cited mechanical failures at the well as a potential cause in its press statement, although Tobin from the AER said “we do not have the technical data or evidence to verify what that cause might be – what the cause or causes might be. We will determine that through our investigation process.”

According to the revised incident report a “subsurface investigation has been initiated and is ongoing.”

CNRL experienced a similar incident in 2009 on their Primrose site. According to Tobin that incident “was the same sort of thing where pressure pushed bitumen to surface and until that pressure was naturally able to recede underground the product continued to – very slowly – come to surface.”

Multiple investigations into the cause of the 2009 underground spill were inconclusive, although the Energy Resources Conservation Board (now the AER) stated “a contributing factor in the release may have been geological weaknesses in combination with stresses induced by high-pressure steam injection.”

CNRL uses a process called High Pressure Cyclic Steam Stimulation (HPCSS) in the region to release bitumen from underground rock formations. The process uses extremely high-pressure steam injection to fracture the underlying reservoir to “create cracks and openings through which the bitumen can flow back into the steam-injector wells,” according to the AER.

Roughly 80 percent of Alberta’s bitumen deposits will be extracted using this and other in situ methods.

Last week more than 20 groups called on the AER to conduct a public inquiry into the safety of in situ operations.

“While the AER has suspended and restricted steam injection operations at the CNRL Primrose operations in response to the most recent events, it is unacceptable to have long fissures in the ground that will continue to spill toxic heated bitumen to surface, and to further risk our water and groundwater resources from these activities,” said Carolyn Campbell, Conservation Specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association.

“The time has come for a broader inquiry into CSS and SAGD [steam assisted gravity drainage] steam injection operations,” she said.

Image Credit: Emma Pullman

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.

Canadian Natural Resource Limited (CNRL), the company responsible for a massive ongoing spill on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range southeast of Fort McMurray released a public notice last week claiming the release was “secured” and that “clean-up, recovery and reclamation activities are well under way.”

Cara Tobin, Office of Public Affairs spokesperson for the Alberta Energy Regulator, said that CNRL has yet to bring the release under control. 

The spill, caused by a rare underground spring of bitumen emulsion, is the result of High-Pressure Cyclic Steam Stimulation (HPCSS) technology that forces steam into underlying bitumen reservoirs at temperatures and pressures high enough to fracture underlying formations.

“I don’t want to presume what they mean by [secure] but I can tell you a few things that might help clarify,” she said.

Under usual circumstances with HPCSS heavy bitumen is softened by steam injected under the surface, allowing the resulting water and oil mixture – called bitumen emulsion – to surface up a wellbore. In this instance the high pressures underground are creating multiple bitumen springs, forcing the oil mixture to the surface in numerous locations including under a body of water.

“With any incident the company would go to the site and identify the outer boundaries of the affected area,” Tobin said.

“There’s two things – one is control and one is containment. What they have done, to the best of my knowledge, is that they have identified the outer extent of the impacted area, which is generally called delineation. I think they were finishing that process [Friday]. And so they are getting to know and rope off the outer extent of the impacted area.”

“So that’s one thing. And that’s basically containment…In this case, this is still an ongoing incident. There is no control on this incident.”

According to CNRL the area of initial impact is 20.7 hectares, or just over 51 acres. The spill volume to date, initially reported at 28 cubic metres, was updated to 950 cubic metres, or nearly 6000 barrels of oil, over the weekend.

“In this case because the incident is ongoing there will continue to be more volume of product coming up to the surface but it’s not going to be impacting any vegetation [other] than what’s already impacted…There will still be more volume of product but it’s not going to be spreading further,” she said.

She added that although this spill is “relatively unique,” an incident of its kind occurred previously on the same CNRL site.

“It’s not like it hasn’t happened before though. We have information on our website, about a similar incident that happened in 2009 and it was the same sort of thing where pressure pushed bitumen to surface and until that pressure was naturally able to recede underground the product continued to – very slowly – come to surface.”

Much like the 2009 incident, the cause of the current spill remains unknown and it is not expected to stop until underground pressure subsides.

“What we’re seeing in this one is that pressure has built up underground and is finding ways to come to surface and we don’t know what the cause of that might be. That will come out in our investigation report. But regardless, it is coming to the surface, very slowly, and it won’t stop until that pressure has gone down underground,” Tobin said.

The rate of the spill remains unreported at this time.

According to documents from the former Alberta Energy Conservation Board (ERCB), now the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), the 2009 release prompted the shut down of the site after bitumen emulsion was seen flowing out from the ground and pooling on the company’s Primrose East site.

A report on the incident says the bitumen emulsion could be observed seeping out of the ground to the south and the east of the well pad, as well as from surface fissures in the area.

The company initiated “emergency flowback to depressurize the formation” in an attempt to stem the release.

“Approximately 11,380 tonnes of solids (including snow, organic material, soil, and bitumen) was ultimately removed from the site for landfill disposal, and 904 cubic metres of bitumen was recovered from the surface of Pad 74 and transported to CNRL’s Wolf Lake Plant,” states the report.

Multiple investigations into the incident over the span of one year were inconclusive and could not ultimately determine how the bitumen emulsion made its way to the surface. The ERCB cited pre-existing unground fractures or a wellbore breach as possible explanations.

In its final summary the ERCB stated “a contributing factor in the release may have been geological weaknesses in combination with stresses induced by high-pressure steam injection.”

HPCSS creates fractures in underground formations to separate bitumen from sand. An AER incident report on the current CNRL release in Cold Lake describes HPCSS as a high-pressure steam injection method that fractures the reservoir to “create cracks and openings through which the bitumen can flow back into the steam-injector wells.”

Image Credit: Emma Pullman/CNRL

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.

"We don't know what the hell is going on under the ground."

That's what Crystal Lameman, a member of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation recently told me. On June 27, an oil spill occurred at Canadian Natural Resources Limited's (CNRL) Primrose operations 75km east of Lac la Biche. The spill happened on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR), located in a region The Royal Canadian Airforce calls "the inhospitable wilds of northern Alberta and Saskatchewan." This 'inhospitable' region happens to be in her community's traditional hunting territory where her family traditionally hunted and trapped and where her elders are buried.

DeSmog Canada reported a release of bitumen emulsion, a mixture of heavy tar sands crude and water from in-situ (in ground) oil production.

Lameman told me she only heard about the spill from the press release from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). "It was disheartening to open my Facebook and see a link showing me the spill in our traditional hunting territory – that I had to get the information from an outside source as opposed to the information coming directly to the community."

The press release is sparse on details, but confirmed that that neither the company nor the government are certain of the volume of emulsion spilled, that the affected area is near Pad 22 but off lease, and has impacted a nearby slough. According to the release, the company has begun clean-up operations. But Lameman heard from source on site that the damage of the spill it much worse than the company, government or media are reporting.

"I was being told, there's wildlife still drinking from the water." She was also told that the 'slough' in question was actually a lake, but the lake has receded so much that industry and government are calling the lake a slough to minimize the perception of the spill. "That concerned me," she says, "and it made me want to go out there and survey the damage." And so Lameman decided it was time to find some answers. We set off to the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, about 45 minutes east of her community.

The Journey

We pulled up to the security gate of a military base. Though I'd heard it was a weapons range, it still surprised me to see the high security and tar sands operations right on the base. Lameman was immediately denied entry and told that she needed to seek permission from an Aboriginal Liaison officer to enter the grounds, on her own traditional territory.

"I was told later that I won't be allowed in either way," Crystal tells me. "These are just the channels I have to go through. We pulled away and I just felt this sense of depression. After all this time we are still having to ask permission to utilize our land. How we walk on the land – we're still being told that, where we can and can't go."

Crystal Lameman of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation.

While regulatory bodies like the ERCB, AER, Fish and Wildlife and the federal government are monitoring, surveying, and testing, Crystal confesses, "It's scary that they're doing whatever they can to deny us access. It makes me wonder, what's happening to those beings who can't talk for themselves? How bad is it? What is it? I don't feel good about it."

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time the Beaver Lake Cree have been denied access to their own traditional territory. In 2008, they launched a lawsuit claiming that the cumulative effects of tar sands development interfere with their constitutionally-protected treaty rights to hunt, trap and fish. The nation is fighting for access to the CLAWR. Recently, a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal rejected Canada and Alberta's attempts to have the case thrown out. 

Legal counsel for BLCN, Drew Mildon, noted: "First Nations have the strongest environmental law tools at their disposal in Canada." He went on to add that "this 'emulsion' spill is a perfect example of local impacts of the tar sands; unfortunately, the rest of us must rely on small, poverty-stricken First Nations to take courageous stands to stem the global impacts that are the debt we will pay for further tar sands development."

"Black Puddles"

According to Lameman's source, the damage was described to her as "black puddles" or "black spots" coming up in different areas. An employee on site confirmed that the tar sands emulsion seeping from the ground is not a pipeline spill. What's more, industry and government do not even know what the spill is. They also know there's a lot of oil seeping, and they don't know what it's coming from.

On site at the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range. Photo by Emma Pullman.

"The ground seepage is off-lease," says Lameman. "And the fact that they're scrambling, trying to figure out what happened, and trying to keep us out of there as much as they can validates the information I was given that this spill is worse than what they're telling us."

According to information obtained from an employee, the contaminated lake in question is likely near Burnt Lake, possibly at Ward Lake.

Site of CNRL Primrose Project via Wikimapia.

Location of emulsion seepage.

Whither CSS?

CNRL's Primrose site uses a kind of tar sands extraction called Cyclic Steam Stimulation, or CSS.

According to CNRL's website CSS is a three stage thermal recovery method where steam is first injected into the well at temperatures over 300°C and pressures of 10-12 Mpa (1450-1740 psi). This heats the bitumen in the reservoir, reducing the viscosity so that it can flow. The steam is then left to 'soak' before production begins for several weeks, mobilizing cold bitumen, and then the flow on the injection well is reversed, producing oil through the same injection well bore.

CSS diagram from Slideshare presentation, CSS Technology for Heavy Oil. 

The CSS process is only able to typically recover approximately 20% of the oil in the ground.

CSS as a process is relatively new, having been developed by Shell by accident in Venezuela after one of its steam injectors blew out. The process is becoming more common in the San Joaquin Valley of California, the Lake Maracaibo area of Venezuela, and in the tar sands.

According to ESG Solutions, a microseismic monitoring company that monitors oil and gas development, the CSS process is:

"environmentally sensitive and many risks exist … Well casings are subject to severe tensile stresses due to the high temperature, high pressure nature of the CSS process. These stresses have the potential to result in mechanical failures such as cement cracks or casing shear leading to well downtime, damaging spills or hazardous blowouts. Shear stresses also develop during the dilation of the reservoir during the steam injection, potentially causing the incursion of fluids into the overlying shales and aquifers above the caprock and causing environmental contamination and costly clean up and regulatory penalties."

Of CSS, Lameman says: "This is a whole new kind of oil mess that no one's really ever heard of in terms of tar sands production. Everyone's heard of pipeline spills and open pit mining. But I don't think the public has been told of the dangers of CSS."

Mining on an active military testing site?

The apparent dangers of CSS and the fact that seismic monitoring is needed to oversee the process are heightened when you consider that CNRL's Primrose facility operates on an active weapons testing facility.

The Cold Lake Air Weapons Range construction began in 1952 and was chosen by the Royal Canadian Air Force to be the country's premier air weapons training base. The base land in Alberta and Saskatchewan covers an area of 11,700 square kilometres. While the federal government worked out an agreement with other First Nations who were systematically pushed out of the area, Lameman's ancestors were banned without consultation or compensation.

CLAWR is said to be the "northern equivalent" of the United States Air Force's Nellis Air Force Range. It hosts over 640 actual targets and 100 realistic target complexes, including 7 simulated aerodromes with runways, tarmac, aircraft, dispersal areas and buildings, as well as mechanized military equipment such as tanks, simulated radar and missile launching sites, mock industrial sites, and command and control centres.

According to the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range website, "the Air Force conducts live fire training exercises on the CLAWR" and it appears that live fire operations are taking place this week.”

In addition to CNRL, Nexen, Husky Energy, Enbridge, Interpipe and Cenovus operate on the CLAWR.

Range activities officer at the CLAWR, Dick Brakele, says "to mix an active oil industry and an active weapons range where weapons are dropped takes a lot of imagination sometimes to ensure that the needs of both are met."

Imagination is one way to look at it.

I met up with Naomi Klein who was also reporting in the area. She told me: "Canadians should be shocked that our government is dropping test bombs in the same geographic area as massive tar sands operations. This is already the most dangerous form of fossil fuel extraction on the planet from an ecological perspective. Combining that mining with weapons testing – no matter how careful the players claim to be – is so reckless it verges on the surreal."

"This is something that everybody needs to know about."

Lameman still has a lot of questions she needs answered. To the oil companies and government she asks, "What is the magnitude of this spill? What is it? How much of the water has been affected? Did you stop it yet?"

For now, she has few answers. But the single mother of two isn't going to give up.

"This is something that everybody needs to know about because though it happens to fall within our traditional hunting territory, there's just as many non-native people as Indigenous people in this area. All of the water systems are connected. If you drink water, this is about you."

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 Harper government knew in early 2012 that proposed regulatory reforms tabled in the contentious Omnibus Budget Bill C-38 would be "very controversial." As a result a parliamentary secretary to the minister of Environment Canada was directed to seek the cooperation of a major tar sands developer, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. (CNRL), regarding the proposed changes, saying "the reforms, when introduced, may be very controversial. I hope we can count on your support."

The comments, revealed in secret briefing notes released to Postmedia News through Access to Information requests, were prepared for Environment Minister Peter Kent's parliamentary secretary, Michelle Rempel. The secret documents show behind-the-scenes coordination between industry and Environment Canada occurred well before the federal government overhauled environmental laws last summer or even proposed the changes in Parliament.

Similar communication did not occur with First Nations or environmental groups.

The briefing notes provided Rempel with specific talking points intended to highlight the role industry interests played in the overhaul of environmental protections.

"Resource development is certainly among the major industrial sectors that are top-of-mind as we consider the modernization of our regulatory system," the notes read.

Rempel, who met with Bill Clapperton, CNRL vice-president of stakeholder and environmental affairs on February 2, 2012, suggested the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – Canada's most powerful oil and gas industry lobby group – had also "pointed to potential areas for reform."

The documents are part of a larger body of internal documents that highlight the federal government's close liaison with the oil and gas industry.

In September 2012, Postmedia's Mike De Souza reported on internal briefing notes prepared for Minister Kent before a meeting with the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. They showed the federal government's promise that new legislation would lighten regulation of industrial projects.

"Pipeline development is certainly among the major industrial sectors that are top-of-mind as we consider the modernization of our regulatory system," the documents stated.

An additional internal document from late 2011 and only released earlier this month, showed numerous oil and gas industry groups requested changes to existing environmental laws that they deemed not beneficial to industrial activities. The Harper government granted these requests only months later with the radical overhaul of environmental protections through Bill C-38.

The federal government appears to have pushed through these massive environmental reforms – eliminating some 3000 environmental reviews in tandem – despite the caution of Environment Canada officials who told Kent such reforms could "weaken public trust and credibility in the environmental assessment process…especially when applied to major projects such as oil sands developments or large mines."

Those comments, originating from Environment Canada, came from internal briefing notes, prepared for Minister Kent, and released through Access to Information legislation to researcher Ken Rubin.

The notes continued, "it is in the interest of all parties that the federal and provincial governments fully meet their respective mandates for the protection of the environment in relation to oil sands development," adding anything less could "undermine the government of Canada's ability to fulfill its responsibilities," reported De Souza.

These internal documents, now released, demonstrate the extent to which Harper's budget legislation appears to be designed with industry interests in mind, or rather, "top-of-mind."

Image Credit: Emissions from tar sands refineries by Kris Krug. Used with permission.

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.