Every day, we’re assailed with dozens of facts and figures about energy issues in Canada: how many jobs or royalties will come from a new pipeline, the annual growth rate of renewables, our per-person energy consumption.

But it’s often tricky to decipher truth from fiction.

That’s where the new 176-page encyclopedic report by veteran earth scientist and expert in coal and unconventional fuels David Hughes is meant to come in.

“Hopefully what it does is it provides the foundation of facts,” Hughes said in an interview with DeSmog Canada. “There’s a lot of rhetoric when it comes to energy. I wanted to make that quantitative so we actually had that bottom line of facts, rather than conjecture. I’m not trying to be prescriptive. I don’t have a magic answer. But I think we need to start with the facts.”

Over the course of 132 graphs and another 34 tables, Hughes — who worked for the Geological Survey of Canada for more than three decades as a scientist and research manager — meticulously chronicles and illustrates close to every imaginable part of Canada’s energy system.

There are four components to the report: 1) Canada’s actual energy production and consumption compared to the rest of the world, broken down into all the different sources; 2) the supplies and money from fossil fuel production; 3) electricity sources and trends; 4) emissions trajectories and targets.

Sounds like a few metric tonnes of info, right?

Well, while we highly recommend perusing through the report in its entirety, we’ve broken down some the 10 most noteworthy facts Hughes highlights in the report.

1. Canada uses a massive amount of energy

It might not come as a surprise to many, but Canada uses a lot of energy: more than five times the world’s average on a per-capita basis.

Hydroelectricity makes up a bigger proportion of our energy mix than other countries, but we have the exact average of dependence on oil and gas as everyone else.

When it comes to natural gas — used for heating and electricity generation — Canada uses 5.8 times the global average.

On the bright side, Canada’s coal consumption has been on the steady decline since the phase-out in Ontario. We’re already using half as much on a per-capita basis as the United States — and that trend will continue as Alberta shuts down its 18 coal-fired power plants in the coming years, with massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

2. There’s an incredible amount of hydro power in this country

Canada is the second largest hydropower producer in the world, trailing only China with its colossal Three Gorges Dam.

On a per-capita basis, Canada harnesses 20 times the power from dams as the global average — only beat out by Norway, which somehow generates 51 times the per-capita average (you’ll start to notice that Scandinavia excels at a lot of these things).

Plenty of forecasts of low-carbon futures predict that Canada will have to add a lot more hydro to the grid in the coming decades. But Hughes isn’t convinced, based on recent precedent.

“I don’t think there’s any way we’re going to build all those Site C sized dams and nuclear reactors [modelled in various reports],” he said. “Economics, ecology and public protest would be off the rails.”

3. But we kind of suck at non-hydro renewables

Unfortunately, that dam-building habit has meant Canada isn’t nearly as good at non-hydro renewables: sources like solar, wind, geothermal and biomass.

Compared to Denmark (23.7 per cent of energy from non-hydro renewables), Portugal (15.5 per cent) and Germany (12.7 per cent), Canada only generated a tiny 3.1 per cent of its energy from such sources in 2016.

That’s slightly below the world average.

This is expected to change in the coming years as provinces and territories shift towards renewables.

4. Industry uses most of the energy in Canada

While we’ve been talking about per-capita consumption, it’s not really that accurate because 51 per cent of Canada’s energy is used by industry for things like oil and gas, refining, mining, pulp and paper and chemicals. Another 23 per cent is used in transportation: freight trucks, passenger cars, airplanes.

That leaves only 14 per cent for residential and 12 per cent for commercial. In other words, it’s the big factories, mines and refineries that are using most of our energy — yet they’re often the same entities which receive exemptions or subsidies for emissions.

Given the industrial sector’s large dependence on fossil fuels to make or extract stuff, this has meant that Canada has an extremely high amount of energy required per dollar of GDP — higher than even China.

While Canada’s GDP is being slowly “decoupled” from emissions, we’re still a long ways from the lower carbon likes of Denmark or the UK.

5. Western Canada is littered with an unbelievable number of old wells

Most people will understandably picture the oilsands when they think about the Canadian oil industry. But the massive growth in extracting bitumen from Alberta’s northern boreal forest is actually a fairly new phenomenon, really kicking off around 2007.

Up until that point, conventional oil — the stuff you drill for in wells — had reigned. But production from that method peaked in 1973. That’s meant that steadily rising production has required more and more wells, as declining well productivity means that companies have to keep finding and drilling more.

“With conventional oil and gas, you’ve just got to keep drilling and pouring capital into it all the time, otherwise it goes down,” Hughes said. “Companies always drill their best land first. You always got for the sweet spots, where the best economics are.”

It’s something made even more frantic with fracking. At last count, fracking now accounts for three-quarters of all oil production from wells in Western Canada. Such wells result in high initial production but decline at an even more rapid pace than conventionals — up to 83 per cent over three years.

As a result, Western Canada is just littered with wells: more than 820,000 in total, including gas, oil and bitumen. Only 235,000 are still active. A full 38 per cent of the wells are listed as inactive, with another 11 per cent as suspended. That means companies haven’t actually dealt with the environmental liabilities — which may cost billions to reclaim in the future.

6. The oilsands still produces some of the highest carbon oil in the world

Politicians and industry often brag about Alberta’s world-class environmental regulations and claim that’s a reason to justify more oilsands expansion.

But the unfortunate reality is that Alberta oilsands crude remains incredibly carbon-intensive, with Suncor’s Synthetic H blend emitting 297 per cent as much pollution as the best-performing oil in the world (in Kazakhstan) and 161 per cent as much as conventional oil in Saskatchewan. Many other oils around the world produce cleaner barrels: Iraq, Kuwait, Brazil, Russia, UK and Norway.

It’s an incredibly energy intensive process, with an energy return on energy investment of 4:1 for in-situ and 8:1 for mining, compared to 17:1 for average global oil.

7. Alberta is receiving astonishingly little return on its oil

Another resounding narrative is that Alberta needs pipelines and oilsands expansion in order to generate massive revenues for government coffers, allowing it to build schools, hospitals and roads. But Alberta is actually receiving decreasing revenues on a per-barrel basis.

Since 1980, oil and gas production in Alberta has doubled. But royalty revenues are down by 90 per cent from that level.

Currently, non-renewable resource revenue makes up a mere 3.3 per cent of the government’s income. The same has happened in B.C., with gas royalties collapsing as production skyrockets. Corporate income taxes from fossil fuel producers have also collapsed by 51 per cent since 2006.

“The concept of high-grading and selling the best of our resources off for declining revenues to governments and people who own the resource doesn’t seem to be very smart,” Hughes quipped.

8. Fossil fuel jobs are also surprisingly low

You’d never know it from listening to Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but long-term fossil fuel jobs have effectively flatlined since 2006. Meanwhile, construction jobs now constitute 52 per cent of all jobs in the sector — but they’re short-term jobs and usually evaporate as soon as a project is completed.

In total, employment in oil and gas extraction totals less than three per cent of total Canadian employment, and around 12 per cent of Alberta’s employment.

Hughes was also intentional not to include so-called “spin-off” jobs in his reporting.

“What the politicians do is say ‘we’ve got to count all of the store owners and money that these workers put into the economy,’ ” he explained. “That sort of assumes the store owners would otherwise be unemployed, which is not accurate. A lot of the jobs numbers that are quoted are huge numbers of spin-off jobs.”

In total, employment in oil and gas extraction totals less than three per cent of total Canadian employment, and around 12 per cent of Alberta’s employment. https://t.co/5uaACUKV81

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 1, 2018

9. Meeting climate targets is going to be nearly impossible with oilsands expansion

Thanks to rapidly rising oilsands emissions, scheduled to hit 115 megatonnes by 2030, it’s appearing unlikely that Canada will hit its Paris Agreement target. Currently, we’re overshooting the mark by a full 66 megatonnes — meaning costly emissions credits will have to be bought.

It’s going to get way harder heading towards 2050. By then, oil and gas emissions will require the remainder of the economy to contract by more than 100 per cent. That will require a tremendous amount of low-carbon electricity to pull off, costing anywhere between $30 billion and $70 billion per year from 2017 to 2050.

Hughes is seriously doubtful this will happen — and instead calls for finding efficiencies and reductions from existing systems.

“Investing in reducing consumption will be a very big deal,” he said.

“To me, we have to do as much of that as we can first before spending a lot of money trying to replace business as usual. I don’t think it’s possible. Fossil fuels are just too useful, energy dense and convenient. All of our infrastructure is built based on them. But I think there’s a lot of low-hanging fruit for reducing consumption.”

10. We need to rely on facts to guide us forward

Hughes spent years chipping away at this report, compiling decades worth of knowledge and sources into one place. He said he’s going to continue updating it now that he has a template.

For the rest of us, the mammoth work now exists as an excellent reference and fact-checking resource for when something a politician or industry exec says sounds a bit off.

“I just want to provide a solid factual basis to go forward,” he concluded. “I’m a grandfather. I have a concern for future generations. I’m a little put off by some of the rhetoric I see on TV. We need to start with the facts and go from there. ”

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.

One of Ottawa and Alberta’s main arguments in defence of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline — that Alberta oil sold to Asian markets will command a higher price — is a myth, according to a new report released Wednesday by scientist and energy resources expert David Hughes.

Contrary to the common claim, Hughes’ research, conducted on behalf of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Parkland Institute, found “a ‘tidewater premium’ does not exist.”

“My research shows that Canada’s oil is not being unfairly discounted by the U.S.,” Hughes said.

“Oil prices internationally and in North America are now nearly identical. That means Canadian crude producers are likely to receive lower prices overseas than in the U.S. because of the higher transportation costs involved in transporting bitumen by pipeline to B.C.’s coast and then exporting it by tanker.”

Source: CCPA report, Will the Trans Mountain Pipeline and tidewater access boost prices and save Canada’s oil industry? 

The new report comes at a difficult time for Kinder Morgan, which is in the midst of a disappointing IPO for the Trans Mountain project. Investors were unenthused with the company’s offering, released amid a shifting political landscape in B.C. that could spell doom for the pipeline project.

The new report, published as part of the work of the Corporate Mapping Project, finds several assumptions used in the National Energy Board’s recommendation for the Trans Mountain were also faulty, including “overly optimistic projections of future oil supply” that “did not consider the Alberta government’s cap on oilsands emissions.”

No, Asian Markets Won't Fetch Better Prices for Canadian Oil: New Report https://t.co/Wnzijrhnme @carollinnitt @ParklandInst @ccpa #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/aDRbprtP2e

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 31, 2017

Recently Greenpeace Canada asked the Alberta Securities Commission to investigate the details of Kinder Morgan’s IPO, saying the company failed to accurately characterize demand for Canadian oil in Asian markets and the financial impacts of climate policy.

As part of Alberta's climate plan, announced November 2015, oilsands emissions are capped at 100 megatonnes per year which eliminates growth of future production.

According to Hughes’ analysis, when considering restrictions placed on Alberta oil production under the province’s greenhouse gas emission cap, “Kinder Morgan overestimated oil supply by 43 per cent in 2038.”

Arguments for the necessity of the Trans Mountain pipeline have also been overstated, according to the new analysis, because of alternate pipeline approvals.

In addition to the Trans Mountain pipeline Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also approved the Enbridge Line 3 project and more recently President Donald Trump approved TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline.

“If these projects are built, which seems likely, there will be a 13 per cent surplus of export pipeline capacity without the [Trans Mountain pipeline].”

Source: CCPA report, Will the Trans Mountain Pipeline and tidewater access boost prices and save Canada’s oil industry? 

Independent economist Robyn Allan has also previous called out the NEB’s reliance on incorrect information about the Trans Mountain pipeline and oil production projections. According to Allan, the federal government was "dangerously misled" on the economic benefits of the pipeline project

“Given the incorrect assumptions used by the NEB in approving the Trans Mountain pipeline it is surprising that the federal government approved it,” Hughes said.

“The pipeline isn’t needed given recently approved pipelines, it will not mean a higher price for oil, and increased tanker traffic would place unnecessary risks on B.C.’s Lower Mainland and sensitive marine environments,” Hughes said.

This week the B.C. NDP and Green Party Leaders announced a power-sharing agreement as part of a plan to oust the B.C. Liberals from their minority government position.

The NDP and Greens have committed to using every available tool to cancel the pipeline project.

“The new B.C. government would be wise to withdraw the Province’s approval for this project,” Hughes said.

The new pipeline puts at odds Canada’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions, the report finds.

“Canada has no energy strategy beyond liquidating its remaining resources as fast as possible,” Hughes said.

“What we really need is a comprehensive energy strategy that addresses both the future energy security of Canadians and Canada’s commitments on climate change.”

Image: Oil tankers. Photo: CCPA report, Will the Trans Mountain Pipeline and tidewater access boost prices and save Canada’s oil industry? 

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.

Either support new pipelines or your community will be incinerated by an oil-carrying train.

It sounds outrageous, but it’s been a foundational argument made by the pro-pipeline lobby ever since the horrific Lac-Mégantic disaster in 2013.

“This is almost like putting a gun to the head of communities, saying ‘well, if we don’t build our pipeline then we’re going to put more oil-by-rail traffic through your community,’ ” says Patrick DeRochie, program manager of Environmental Defence’s climate and energy program.

“I think that’s dishonest and the oil industry’s really manipulating legitimate public concerns about rail safety to push pipelines.”

On Dec. 20, 2016 — less than a month after the federal approvals of the Kinder Morgan TransMountain and Enbridge Line 3 pipelines — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau clearly stated that “putting in a pipeline is a way of preventing oil by rail, which is more dangerous and more expensive.”

The fact that it’s an oft-repeated sentiment shouldn’t overshadow the fact that this is a completely false binary.

Canada is hardly shipping any oil by rail. It never has.

And the only way that oil-by-rail shipments will seriously increase as predicted by the Canadian Energy Research Institute and National Energy Board is if Canada continues with its plan to allow for the massive expansion of Alberta’s oilsands in the coming decades, a move that will undermine calls for a moratorium on all new fossil fuel infrastructure in order to avoid the effects of catastrophic climate change.

Highest Amount Ever Exported by Rail Was Mere 178,000 Barrels Per Day

Here are the numbers on oil-by-rail.

In September 2016 — the most recent month reported by the National Energy Board on the subject — oil-by-rail exports to the United States were 69,292 barrels per day (bpd).

They had dipped as low as 43,205 bpd in June 2016.

This obviously reflects the extremely low per-barrel price that bitumen is fetching from American refineries, which is also why there’s currently around 400,000 bpd of spare capacity in the pipeline network.

Plus, oil-by-rail generally costs more than shipping oil by pipeline, making it an even less viable option in such economic times.

But rail shipments have never been particularly notable relative to total crude oil production.

In fact, oil-by-rail’s high point in recent years was in September 2014, when 178,989 bpd were transported to the U.S.

The same year, Canada was exporting a total of 2.85 million bpd. In other words, at its very peak, oil-by-rail accounted for a mere 6.28 per cent of total exports.

Newly Approved Pipelines Quadruple Capacity Historically Shipped by Rail

It should also be noted that not all oil transported by rail is exported to the States, with some simply transported to other parts of the country for storage or usage for purposes such as asphalt.

For instance, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reports the oil-by-rail hit “almost 200,000 bpd by the end of 2013,” despite the NEB only reporting 166,570 bpd in rail exports during December 2013.

Domestic transport also helps explain why the Canadian Energy Research Institute reported in 2014 that about 35,000 bpd of oil-by-rail from Western Canada wasn’t exported to the United States (and thus not counted by the NEB).

Incredibly, nobody is keeping detailed, accurate numbers on oil-by-rail.

But we can assume — generously — that the highest oil-by-rail shipments have ever hit in Canada is 225,000 bpd (180,000 bpd in exports and another 45,000 bpd in cross-country transport).

The recent approvals of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain and Enbridge Line 3 pipelines will allow for the addition of 900,000 bpd in pipeline capacity from the oilsands, assuming a 15 per cent surplus for outages and maintenance.

That’s four times the amount of oil that has ever been shipped by rail, either for exports or domestic transport.

New pipelines are not about “displacing” oil currently being shipped by rail — there’s simply no evidence for that.

Instead, new pipelines are about preparing for a massive expansion of the oilsands by almost two million bpd between 2015 and 2040, and weaponizing people’s fears of oil-by-rail to do so.

How the Spectre of Oil Trains is Deceptively Used to Push Pipelines https://t.co/mWbMw5F4SK @james_m_wilt #cdnpoli #oilbyrail #propaganda

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 6, 2017

Oil-By-Rail Unsafe Because of Regulatory Lack

But there’s a second and related key problem with the pipeline versus rail debate, further undermining the argument for new pipelines.

Specifically, that there are technologies and regulations available to ensure that oil being shipped by rail is far safer than what the current rules mandate.

As a result, combined exports and domestic transport via rail could even rebound to 200,000 or 250,000 bpd and we’d never have to seriously worry about a Lac-Mégantic-like disaster again.

How?

Transport Canada could require rail companies to increase the number of inspectors and crew members on trains, reduce speed limits and require certain braking system protocols and better public disclosure.

The phase-out of the old CPC-1232 tank railcars and transition to new and safer TC-117 tank railcars could be accelerated. The federal environment minister could be required to order an environmental assessment of oil-by-rail projects, as recommended in September 2016 by NDP MP Linda Duncan.

‘Neatbit’ Would Reduce Risk of Explosions and Spills, But Initially Increase Costs

And then there’s the increasingly popular idea of “neatbit.”

Bitumen from the oilsands is current shipped in both pipeline and train in a form called “dilbit,” which requires about 30 per cent of diluent to allow it move. The diluent, usually made of a natural gas-based condensate, makes the mixture highly flammable, explosive and difficult to contain in spills.

These characteristics are dangerously compounded in the case of train accidents.

Conversely, “neatbit” only requires one to two per cent of diluent.

The product thus has the consistency of peanut butter, meaning it won’t flow in the event of a spill. It also doesn’t catch fire or explode.

David Hughes, expert on unconventional fuels and author of multiple reports for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), says: “In effect, shipping raw bitumen by rail is likely a safer alternative than pipelines.”

Shipping bitumen as neatbit would arguably save companies money in the long term. But it would also require a bit of upfront capital, and policy direction from governments.

Heavy oil refineries don’t have the infrastructure to receive it. It would take longer to unload. Upstream companies would have to build diluent recovery units and invest in insulated tank railcars with heated coils to keep the bitumen somewhat soft during transport.

And unlike pipelines, oil-by-rail doesn’t result in a “carbon lock-in” given that many other commodities can be transported by rail.

Bruce Campbell of the CCPA has concluded the oil industry “is not in any hurry to make the transition because of the (relatively modest) upfront investment.”

Kai Nagata of the Dogwood Initiative agrees: “The oil companies don’t want to do anything that is inconvenient or that would require them to build new facilities or spend more money. So far, I don’t think there’s much interest in moving that inert form of bitumen in regular rail cars.”

‘It’s Purely Out of a Profit Motive That They Invoke the Comparison’

Not only is it deceptive to claim that new pipelines are needed to replace oil-by-rail, but it also ignores the fact that oil-by-rail can be made much safer than it is at the moment (although it will continue to be more carbon-intensive due to its current reliance on diesel as fuel).

Yet Lac-Mégantic continues to be subtly weaponized by corporate execs and politicians as if these two facts aren’t true, or even worthy of acknowledgement.

Oil-by-rail has never been a major player in Canada. It never will be if international climate commitments are honoured. And even if it is used as a way to offer some flexibility to producers, it can be done in a way that’s safer than current practices require.

Nagata suggests that such players are relying on people’s fears about a non-issue in order to force them to a point of compromise that would allow them to build pipeline expansion infrastructure.

“It’s purely out of a profit motive that they invoke the comparison,” he says. “Not out of any sense of concern for the safety of communities along the route.”

DeRochie agrees: “It’s a legitimate concern. And I think the oil industry grasped onto that and used it as a scare tactic to push pipelines.”

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.

For years, the Canadian public has been besieged with the same message: Alberta’s pipeline network is completely maxed out, meaning the oilsands are landlocked and new pipelines must be constructed to allow producers to ship their product to new markets and eliminate the discount imposed on exports.

It’s a notion that’s been repeated by politicians of all stripes, including Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

But there’s no merit to that argument, according to a new report from the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Oil Change International.

In the briefing, titled “Canada Not Running Out of Pipeline Capacity,” authors Adam Scott and Greg Muttitt point out that there’s around 400,000 barrels/day of unused capacity in the network, easily accommodating exports for projects currently operating and under construction.

This calculation was derived from the organization’s Integrated North American Pipeline model, which then concluded the network was 89 per cent full.

As a result, the only reason that new pipelines like Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East would be required is if there’s a massive expansion of the oilsands, a move that would arguably undermine the Paris Agreement and other international climate commitments (an argument also made by David Hughes in his thorough June 2016 report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives).

“When you look at the reality of the situation building new pipelines would not increase the amount of money that producers receive because there isn’t a shortage,” Scott told DeSmog Canada. “And there’s no discount anymore that could be relieved by building a new pipeline.”

“It’s really that missing piece of the puzzle that Canadians are not getting good information on.”

Only Reason for Kinder Morgan and Energy East Would Be For Huge Oilsands Expansion

Scott isn’t discounting the historical existence of an artificial price differential. Rather, he’s arguing that it no longer applies.

There was a serious pipeline constraint in 2012 and 2013 that resulted in a transport-related price gap between Western Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent Crude with Western Canadian Select (WCS). In other words, the lack of pipeline access rendered bitumen production and transport less economically viable.

But that changed with the construction of new pipelines between Illinois, Oklahoma and refineries on the Gulf Coast in 2013 and 2014, as well as the removal of a 40-year ban in the U.S. on exporting domestically produced oil in December 2015 (which the report suggests “reduced market distortions between shale oil and oil sands crude oil at U.S. Gulf Coast refineries”).

Now, oilsands producers are facing three major issues that ultimately have nothing to do with pipelines: lower quality crude, distance from major markets (almost exclusively in the U.S. given access to heavy oil refineries) and extremely low global prices.

“In reality, that differential is basically gone now,” Scott says.

He suggests that the pipeline network may come close to full in 2018, resulting in a “very brief” spike in prices.

But there are more expansions planned for the network that will likely come online to loosen that bottleneck: Enbridge is currently planning to add 800,000 barrel/day worth of pipeline capacity to its mainline system by 2020, which wouldn’t require new permits as it would be an expansion rather than a new pipeline. Kinder Morgan and Energy East wouldn’t be constructed until 2020 or so.

“It has nothing to do with the decision about current pipelines,” he says.

Taking the Enbridge expansion into consideration, the Oil Change International report concludes that “only significant additional plans to increase production beyond projects already operating, in-construction or sanctioned would change this situation.”

One Million Additional Barrels/Day Allowed Under Oilsands Cap

Here’s a bit of rough math to provide some additional context.

The oilsands currently produce about 2.4 million barrels/day and 70 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon emissions per year. Alberta’s new emissions cap on the oilsands allows for only 100 Mt per year.

Assuming that per-barrel emissions stay constant (which is unlikely given that most new production will occur via the more energy intensive process of in-situ), the cap allows for another one million barrels/day or so of production, up to around 3.4 million barrels/day.

David Hughes has also calculated the 45 per cent increase in production could be accommodated via existing pipeline and rail networks, which includes a 15 per cent surplus for maintenance and pipeline problems.

Specifically, the potential addition of 800,000 barrels/day from Enbridge added to the 400,000 barrels/day in current spare capacity allows for 1.2 million barrels/day in new production.

If Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain or TransCanada’s Energy East are approved by the federal government, it will serve as a clear signal that nobody’s taking that cap seriously.

That’s the assumption that allows the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to estimate that oilsands production will increase from 2.4 million barrels/day in 2015 to 3.7 million barrels/day in 2030, and the National Energy Board to calculate that oilsands exports could increase to 4.5 million barrels/day by 2040.

Oil Industry Is ‘Betting That In The Future the Government Will Ignore Its Own Climate Policy’

But such a spike can’t happen if Canada has any intention of meeting international climate commitments, especially its Paris Agreement target of reducing emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

A widely shared report published in September by Oil Change International titled “The Sky’s Limit” concluded that no new oil, gas, or coal extraction projects can be built if the world has any legitimate interest in staying below the mark of two degrees celsius above pre-industrial averages.

“Investment in new projects beyond what’s already under construction has stalled completely with the oil prices,” Scott says. “The oil industry knows these pipelines aren’t required and they’re betting that in the future the government will ignore its own climate policy and that somehow, miraculously, the price of oil will recover. Both of those things would be required for those pipelines to be needed.”

A recent analysis by economist Robyn Allan found that constrained oil production in the oilsands is exclusively the result of low oil prices, not restricted pipeline capacity. Allan found a total of 2.7 million barrels per day of oilsands production was cancelled between January 2014 and September 2016 due to the low price environment.

Per-Barrel Emissions Have Increased by One-Quarter in Last Decade

It also assumes that technological innovations will help decrease per-barrel emissions in order to meet those climate commitments.

Yet recent history shows little precedent for that: a Pembina Institute report from August 2016 noted that total emissions intensity has increased by 25 per cent between 2004 and 2014.

Technologies such as using solvents instead of gas to extract bitumen via in-situ isn’t very advanced, Scott says, and the increasingly popular technology features a far higher per-barrel emissions rate in both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide than open-pit mining.

“With the crash in oil prices, [research and development] budgets and the willingness of the oil industry to spend extra marginal dollars on extra technology that would increase the cost is gone,” he says.

“We don’t expect the oil industry will have a real ability to dramatically reduce emissions intensity.”

Yet politicians across Canada continue to push for pipelines, with the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain project expected to receive approval shortly before Christmas.

Scott suggests that such elected officials “are completely ignoring the reality of what the Paris Agreement means” and those who contend that new fossil fuel development can be allowed under such commitments “don’t understand climate science.”

“We’re not saying we need to shut down the fossil fuel industry tomorrow,” Scott says.

“But Canada can’t meet its own obligations to the Paris Agreement if it intends to allow for that expansion. In that way, the decision of whether or not to build these pipelines is a direct choice from politicians about whether or not they’re going to honour their obligations on climate change. It’s that simple.”

Image: Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi. Photo: Government of Canada

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

This article originally appeared on The Tyee.

Politicians who advocate for more bitumen pipelines and LNG exports are making a "have your cake and eat it too argument" because there is no way Canada can meet its climate change commitments under such a scenario says David Hughes, one of the nation's top energy experts.

Even building just one LNG terminal coupled with modest oilsands growth would increase oil and gas emissions from 26 per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions in 2014 to 45 per cent by 2030.

Under such a scenario, as forecasted by the National Energy Board, the rest of the economy would be forced to contract its emissions by 47 per cent in order to meet promised greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the Paris talks.

"This level of reduction is near-impossible without severe economic consequences," concluded Hughes in a new report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

In other words the cheapest and most sensible approach to reducing greenhouse gases from current 732 megatonnes to a 2020 target of 620 megatonnes involves shrinking the oil and gas industry by limiting bitumen extraction, and not building more pipelines.

Canada's politicians need to "rethink the expansion of oil and gas production if we are going to be serious about meeting our Paris commitments," Hughes told The Tyee.

"Canada still needs oil and gas and it is more than self-sufficient in satisfying its own requirements. But ramping up exports is not an economic winner when you consider climate change and oil revenue in general. We need a long-term plan as opposed to short term hell-bent growth that damns the consequences."

Author's Decades of Expertise

Hughes, an energy analyst and earth scientist with a public record of high reliability, worked for 32 years for the federal government and headed research on unconventional gas and coal for the Natural Resources Canada until he retired in 2008.

Since then his independent reports, which have challenged industry and government hubris on a number of energy matters, are often quoted in publications as varied as Nature, The Economist, the Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg, USA Today and The Tyee.

His latest number crunching report not only answers the question "Can Canada Expand Oil and Gas Production, Build Pipelines and Keep Its Climate Change Commitments?" with a clear no but does so with public data available from the National Energy Board and Environment Canada.

Independent energy analyst with 32 years experience working for the fed gov has wake up call for #Canada https://t.co/jkYtXC2wns #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 7, 2016

In recent months Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and former federal natural resources minister Joe Oliver have all advocated for more bitumen export pipelines, while British Columbia premier Christy Clark has lauded the benefits of B.C.'s LNG projects and natural gas pipelines from fracking operations in northern B.C.

But based on data provided by the National Energy Board and Environment Canada Hughes found that there was no way that Canada could build more pipelines and meet promised global reductions in greenhouse gases.

"Nobody seems to be doing the math and that's why I did the report to put the numbers together."

Need for Pipelines Challenged

Hughes also found that no new pipelines are actually needed if Alberta keeps its promise to cap oilsand growth and emissions at 100 megatons a year. The energy-intensive mining project, Canada's largest single source of emissions, now emits 68 million tons a year.

Source: CCPA

Hughes argues that there is enough existing pipeline and rail capacity to handle a 45 per cent ramp up in the oilsands production. "The additional pipelines being lobbied for by industry and governments are therefore not necessary."

Hughes also debunks the myth that getting bitumen to tidewater ports will somehow increase the global price that Canada's gets for its low-grade bitumen.

For years now pipeline advocates have argued that getting cheap bitumen or heavy oil to eastern refineries would be highly profitable due to the price difference between West Texas Intermediate, the North American benchmark and North Sea Brent, the global benchmark for oil.

But in the last two years that difference has largely disappeared with the completion of U.S. pipelines to Gulf Coast refineries combined with the removal of a ban on U.S. raw oil exports. That long-term ban often kept crude oil bottled up on the continent.  

Even the federal government admits that the money rational for an Energy East pipeline, for example, has vastly changed in secret memos obtained by Bloomberg last month:

"The benefits of building the pipeline would be greater if the price between WTI and Brent would be as large as that observed in 2011 and 2012," said a December 10, 2015 document marked secret, reported Bloomberg.

"Bitumen sells at a substantial discount because its heavy, highly viscous nature, and high sulphur content make it more costly to refine," explained Hughes in the report.

"This reality will not change even if large volumes reach tidewater for export, as the difference in price that existed over the past few years between the inter-national benchmark — Brent Crude — and North America's benchmark — West Texas Intermediate (WTI) — which did provide a premium for tidewater access over the past few years, has now been reduced to almost nothing."

"The assertion by politicians that tidewater access enabling overseas exports will somehow confer a significant price premium for Canadian oil is therefore not supported by the facts," noted the report.

Slowing Down Production Advised

Canada currently produces about four million barrels of oil a day but 61 per cent of that volume comes from high cost and carbon intensive mining in the tar sands.

The country exports about nearly three quarters of what it produces to the United States, and primarily as a raw feedstock for U.S. refineries.

Flint Hills Resources, a company owned by the U.S. billionaire Koch brothers, remains one of the largest refiners of raw Canadian bitumen at 320,000 barrels a day.

As Canada exports more raw bitumen south of the border to U.S. refineries, the U.S. has increasingly exported more refined petroleum products to Canada. Annual U.S. exports to Canada have increased from 50,000 barrels a year in 2004 to 200,000 barrels in 2015.

"The widely recited rhetoric that Canada must continue its de facto energy strategy of liquidating its remaining nonrenewable resources as fast as possible to maintain the economy has no credibility," concluded Hughes in his report.

"Canada has never produced more oil, yet government revenues from the industry have collapsed. Yes, prices are low and that is affecting the industry, but nothing can be done about that given that prices are set globally. Maintaining the notion that only ever-expanded exports can rescue the Canadian economy ignores fundamental price realities as well as eliminates any chance that Canada will meet its emission-reduction targets under COP21."

The report echoes many of the conclusions reached by former CIBC economist Jeff Rubin in his recent report on the future of the tar sands. It called pipeline expansion an economic folly.

"As one of the most costly oil sources in the world, the resource is also one of the most vulnerable to plunging oil prices," wrote Rubin.

"Improvement, no matter how impressive, in either its own carbon emissions or in Canada's overall emissions performance, will not remedy that vulnerability in any meaningful sense."

To produce a viable return on investment new bitumen projects require oil prices between $68 and $100 per barrel.

You can click here and read more about B.C. LNG and fracking.

Image: jasonwoodhead23/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.

By Andrew Nikiforuk for The Tyee.

The B.C. budget claims the province is making money from shale gas. But last month The Tyee showed the province is pouring more cash into the industry than it is getting back.

In fact the only time the B.C. government made any money from shale gas was during a land lease boom nearly a dozen years ago. Ever since then, revenues have dwindled to next to nothing due to low royalties and taxpayer-funded subsidies to the ailing shale gas industry.

Dig deeper, and four more claims made by the B.C. government turn out to be liquefied natural gas whoppers as well.

New information on employment numbers, shale gas reserves, transmission lines and the LNG promise of economic prosperity show that stretching the truth remains a persistent trend in the Christy Clark administration.

Whopper #1: Vastly less gas to sell than claimed

Let's begin with the government claim that British Columbia "has more than an estimated 2,900 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of marketable shale gas reserves," or more methane in the ground than the entire United States. Last year David Hughes, a former analyst with Natural Resources Canada who mapped much of the nation's coal and gas supplies, took a hard look at real reserves and found that the government claim had no basis in reality.

Hughes pointed out in a report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that the BC Oil and Gas Commission estimated that B.C. only had 376 tcf of marketable shale resources. (Hughes added 40 tcf to this number for good measure, for a total of 416 tcf, to account for possible resources in developing plays.)

But proven reserves, or what industry can extract with existing technology, were only 44.4 tcf. That's one sixty-fifth of the government's inflated figure of 2,900 tcf. When Hughes noted that the emperor was wearing no clothes, the emperor (Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman) accused Hughes of misrepresenting the facts.

Coleman wrote an op-ed that said "B.C.'s natural gas supports long-term prosperity." The op-ed did not correct the government's accounting errors.

But according to a series of freedom of information requests just received by Marc Lee at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, that's not what civil servants were telling politicians.

In several email exchanges, they admitted that the government had used the wrong terminology and "misused terms or values such as 'reserves,' 'resources,' or 'marketable' in describing B.C.'s oil and gas endowment."

Hughes notes that the BC Oil and Gas Commission now estimates raw methane reserves in the province to be 51 tcf. Once processed, that gas might amount to 44.4 tcf.

Yet National Energy Board regulators had already approved 12 export permits totalling 205 tcf at the time Hughes's report was published, and were reviewing seven more with a combined total of 435 tcf (the NEB has since approved another six permits).

If the Clark government's aspirations of five LNG terminals come to fruition, this would require exports of 150 tcf of gas by 2040, or more than three times current proven marketable reserves.

Given the uncertainties in resource estimates compared to proven reserves, coupled with Canada's own needs, Hughes, a conservative energy analyst, questions the wisdom of a strategy hell-bent on liquidating these finite resources as fast as possible, particularly if B.C. and Canada care about meeting the greenhouse gas emission reductions committed to in the Paris climate talks. Yet the dubious figure of 2,900 tcf remains on the government website.

Whopper #2: Vastly fewer LNG jobs than claimed

The next wacky accounting LNG figure concerns the government claim that its non-existent industry will gainfully employ 100,000 British Columbians some great day in some near future, or more specifically 2018. Last year, Lee at the CCPA also dug into that fiction.

He discovered that the impressive and magical number came from a report written by the accounting firm Grant Thornton. The firm only used government-provided data and economic models.

Not surprisingly the government published the report just prior to the 2013 election. In his study Lee found the numbers were highly inflated and bore no resemblance to the real economic world of LNG.

Lee concluded that B.C.'s LNG sector could be expected to support "only 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs per LNG terminal over three years and 200 to 300 permanent workers once operational." As a consequence, five LNG terminals might create between 15,000 short-time jobs, but not 100,000.

When Lee released his findings last year the government immediately attacked the CCPA report as "misguided and poorly researched."

A freedom of information request, however, has revealed, once again, that email exchanges between civil servants largely supported Lee's version: real job creation numbers might be a few thousand but not 100,000. One email thread confirms that the Petronas Pacific NorthWest LNG project will launch only "330 long-term operation careers."

Clear-headed analyses by the industry around the world also confirm Lee's realistic job assessment and question the government's credibility. The International Monetary Fund, for example, recognizes LNG as a capital-intensive industry with a poor record of job creation. A typical LNG plant will only create a few hundred jobs during the planning phase, a few thousand during the construction phase, and only a few hundred when operating. That's it.

Consider the example of Mozambique, which wants to exploit its rich offshore natural gas reserves. A 2014 report on its prospects emphasized the well-known fact that LNG is not a job-creating industry. "In terms of employment, the capital intensive nature of the industry means that its direct contribution to job creation is extremely limited, at less than 0.5 per cent of formal sector jobs," explained the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies report.

"Of key importance will be the ability to link the extractive sector — which is capital intensive and responsible for few direct jobs — to the wider economy," added the report.

And then the report makes this notable revelation: "Unlike the situation in Tanzania, where politicians frequently promise citizens tens of thousands of jobs in the gas industry, the Mozambique government's expectations of massive job creation have already been moderated. Most estimates put job creation linked to the LNG ventures at around 7,000–7,500."

To date, a million-dollar government website designed to connect citizens looking for work in the LNG industry has not connected anybody to anything. But it has employed one previous politician, Gordon Wilson, a former leader of the BC Liberal party.

Wilson now earns $150,000 a year to advocate for a capital-intensive industry that hasn't created any jobs — except for Clark supporters.

In Australia, LNG has left another poor employment horror show that the government in B.C. has failed to study or acknowledge. Unfettered LNG exports in Australia not only increased both natural gas and electricity costs for consumers, but also reduced the manufacturing sector's ability to compete and create jobs.

"U.S. policymakers should look to the Australian LNG export example as a warning for what can occur due to escalating LNG exports," recently warned one industrial energy consumers' group. In other words, a successful LNG business could kill the province's manufacturing base by inflating natural gas prices.

Whopper #3: No, LNG prosperity is not close at hand

Along with the jobs fiction, the government has also manufactured a prosperity fiction. In February the Conference Board of Canada published a glowing report on the province's proposed 21 LNG projects called "A Changing Tide: British Columbia's Emerging Liquefied Natural Gas Industry."

Even though not one project has proceeded to the construction phase, the optimistic report concluded that just three large LNG terminals could export 30 million tons per annum (MTPA).

Such activity would generate 33,000 permanent jobs and $7 billion in investment and raise GDP. It would also double the amount of shale gas production by an additional five billion cubic feet, and carpet-bomb much of northeastern B.C. with gas wells.

But these figures are all pie in the sky and again bear no resemblance to reality.

Here's one bitter taste of reality. Most readers will recall that Apache Corp., a Houston-based energy firm, conducted some of the largest frack jobs in northern B.C. and was one of the first companies to champion an LNG terminal. But in 2014 it sold its interests in its Kitimat proposal along with an Australian project. Here's why: last year the shale fracking company posted a loss of nearly $25 billion. That's right: $25 billion. Fracking shale gas, an exercise in declining returns, rarely pays the bills.

More reality can be found in a 2015 report by Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, a rigorous non-profit educational group based in London that analyzed the prospects for North America's LNG industry.

It was blunt: "Despite Canada's abundance of gas resources and the plethora of proposed LNG export schemes, the current business environment, characterized by low oil prices and industry consolidation, does not indicate that any Canadian LNG scheme will be commissioned before the middle of the next decade."

Moreover, "the window of opportunity to capture premium Asian markets has eluded the Canadian projects" because of deep uncertainty and falling demand in those markets. U.S. LNG projects are also cheaper.

The report concluded that the fate of Canadian projects is tied to the price of oil, and they would only succeed if oil were selling for somewhere between $76 to $90 a barrel, "which does not seem competitive with the first generation" of U.S. LNG projects.

In other words there is no emerging LNG industry in Canada, and if one does appear it won't arrive until 2025, or nearly a decade from now. And even that is uncertain.

The Conference Board (which makes no mention of the Oxford Institute report) was funded by Progress Energy, which is owned by Petronas, the Malaysian state-owned oil giant backing the Pacific NorthWest LNG project.

Most media stories on the report failed to mention this apparent conflict of interest. But the government of B.C. is only too happy to cite this as gospel while cheerleading a fantasy industry.

Whopper #4: Yes, Site C dam is for powering frackers

Last but not least come some wacky accounting numbers on the Site C dam, a $9-billion public works project that analysts generally agree will increase everyone's electricity bills. Although provincial authorities swear the project has nothing to do with LNG, Ben Parfitt, an investigative journalist, has revealed otherwise in a DeSmog Canada article.

Last January, the province announced a new $300-million transmission line to power shale gas development in the south Peace Region. Two other transmission lines are also being proposed. The lines will allow shale gas drillers to use electricity to power their operations instead of methane.

As a consequence they'll have more gas to export and access to cheap energy subsidized by taxpayers.

What the press release did not explain, notes Parfitt, is that "virtually all of this new transmission infrastructure is being built at public expense to provide power to one entity and one entity alone — the natural gas industry."

Two other proposed lines reinforce the story. One 140 kilometre-long project will fragment the forest to bring power to the Pink Mountain Region in the north Montney basin. It will benefit one shale gas extractor in particular: Progress Energy.

That shale gas drilling company is owned by Petronas, which successfully lobbied the government to lower its LNG tax rates. Meanwhile, Progress Energy paid for the boosterish Conference Board report.

Petronas is also one of the backers of the controversial Pacific NorthWest LNG project off Lelu Island at the mouth of the Skeena River.

ATCO, the anointed builder of the Petronas transmission line, recently argued that no public review of the project was necessary and asked for an exemption under Section 22 of the Utilities Commission Act.

"The project is being developed on an aggressive schedule to meet with Progress [Energy] timelines. Failure to meet these timelines reduces the feasibility of electrification and poses a substantial threat to the project proceeding."

Energy Minister Bill Bennett supported the corporate request in a Business in Vancouver story: "My understanding right now is that if I do not direct the BCUC [British Columbia Utilities Commission] to allow these projects to go ahead, that we may lose some interest on the part of the gas companies…. They just don't feel that they can wait for a long BCUC process."

When politicians elect to bypass mandated legislated safeguards to protect the public purse by evaluating the need for projects (and that's what the BCUC does), then they are no longer working for taxpayers.

But the logic is clear, says Parfitt. "The more transmission lines erected to allegedly 'green up' the field operations of fossil fuel companies, the more fossil fuel industry activity. The more such activity, the more the government and BC Hydro can justify Site C."

It's all a self-serving story. The government produces wacky numbers and accounting figures to justify corporate LNG scheming that no longer make any economic sense.

Years ago Jacque Ellul, the French philosopher, noted that "propaganda is called upon to solve the problems created by technology, to play on maladjustments, and to integrate the individual into a technological world." It's how government and industry now work.

In B.C. the government uses propaganda not only to integrate its citizens into its wacky LNG fantasy, but to subsidize foreign companies and pay for unneeded dams and transmission lines at the same time. It is designed to make taxpayers smile while they are being robbed. 

Image: Facebook

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 days of cheap abundant natural gas from US shale gas ‘fracking’ operations are most likely numbered, three experts testified before the Ontario Energy Board (OEB). Far better for Ontario to increase energy efficiency and look elsewhere to meet its natural gas needs.

“If (US and state) governments respond with effective regulatory and economic measures to the environmental challenges facing the shale gas industry, the cost of shale development will certainly rise, and in some cases is likely to become uneconomic,” says Lisa Sumi, one of the three experts and a environmental consultant, in a recent report The Regulation of Shale Gas Development: State of Play.

Ontario’s gas distributors Enbridge Gas and Union Gas want to expand the Greater Toronto Area’s natural gas delivery network and import natural gas from the surging shale gas industry in the US northeast (primarily the Marcellus shale and Utica shale gas reserves).

“The first step in any energy strategy should be looking for ways to conserve energy, not increase energy consumption,” Mark Calzavara, Ontario-Quebec organizer for the Council of Canadians, told DeSmog Canada.

Lisa Sumi, along with geoscientist David Hughes, and Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, professor of engineering at Cornell University warned the OEB importing US shale gas will increase Ontarians’ household heating costs in the future. And using shale gas from fracking operations will put more global warming greenhouse gases (GHG) into the planet’s atmosphere.

“The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming,” says Ingraffea in his report.

Fracking Has Dirtied Natural Gas’ Clean Energy Name

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking to get access to unconventional sources of natural gas like shale gas involves digging underground wells 200 to 3,000 meters vertically and another 1,000 meters or more horizontally to penetrate the rock-like shale. Pressurized water laced with toxic chemicals is shot down the well to break apart the shale and push the natural gas to the surface.

Poorly constructed or cracked fracking wells have led to fracking chemicals and methane (natural gas is mainly methane) contaminating drinking water. A study of 141 drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania (home to the Marcellus shale) published last June found 82% of water samples taken within a kilometer of fracking wells contained levels of methane six times higher than samples more than a kilometer from fracking wells. 

Fracking operations also leak methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading scientific body on climate issues, methane has 84 times more global warming potential over twenty years than carbon dioxide.

“This does not justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather demonstrates that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming,” concludes Cornell's Ingraffea.

Ingraffea was named one of TIME Magazine’s “People Who Mattered” in 2011 for his research on methane emissions from shale gas. A study published last August by the US’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicates fracking wells may leak anywhere between 6 – 12% of the methane they produce. A 2% methane leakage rate is already too much according to the Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

These ‘fugitive emissions’ from fracking operations remain largely unreported or under reported by the gas industry as DeSmog Canada revealed in an exposé on British Columbia’s gas industry last May.

Shale Gas is Becoming Uneconomical

“U.S. supply growth assumptions made by Enbridge and Union Gas are overly optimistic at the natural gas prices assumed,” wrote geoscientist Hughes in his critical report on the GTA project.

Hughes has spent four decades studying energy resources, and says many of the projections for the US shale gas industry are overblown.

“Four of five shale gas plays comprising 80% of shale gas production in the U.S. are in or near decline,” states Hughes.

Fracking wells tend to produce a lot of natural gas in the first three years, but then head into a steep production decline afterwards. Hard-to-access shale gas is expensive to produce and reduced supplies of shale gas will increase the price of natural gas coming from the US.

The Pushback Against Fracking

According to environmental consultant Sumi, the US is introducing regulations that are slowing the production of shale gas and making it less economic for producers. Sixty bans and one-hundred and twelve moratoriums on fracking have been introduced in New York alone, which is part of the Marcellus shale.

Public pushback against fracking in the US alone could make shale gas uneconomical. And the bans and moratoriums go beyond New York.

France and Bulgaria have banned fracking and Germany has been very hesitant to endorse the method. Quebec’s moratorium on fracking is still in place and indigenous and non-indigenous residents of New Brunswick have locked horns with their government to stop fracking exploration in their province.

Fracking has created a new type of environmental movement that has brought rural farmers and environmentally conscious urbanites together. In pro-mining countries such as South Africa and Australia the fracking industry has come up against surprisingly stiff public opposition in the Treasure the Karoo and Lock the Gate movements.

On October 19th, the second annual Global Frackdown will be held “to challenge fracking” worldwide. Last year’s Global Frackdown took place in over 200 communities in twenty countries.

Ontario may be betting on the wrong horse by locking their energy future into ‘frack gas’ imports to warm the homes of the most populous province of Canada.

Image credit: Global Frackdown, Fracking Resources, Council of Canadians

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.