The oil and gas industry in Canada claims opposition to the oilsands, the world’s second largest reserve of oil and Canada’s fastest source of greenhouse gas emissions, is merely “ideological,” according to new internal documents released under Access to Information legislation (attached below).

In the documents the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canada’s largest oil and gas lobby body, suggested that because “the objection to the oil sands is ideological” and “not a concern that Alberta’s current framework is not stringent enough,” there is no guarantee that a stricter regulatory regime for the development of the oilsands will “’secure’ social license and forestall negative policy action.”

Alberta, required to renew its oil and gas emissions regulations in 2014, is proposing a new greenhouse gas target that would see a reduction of 40 per cent per barrel of oil produced and a maximum penalty price of $40 per tonne of CO2 above that level by 2020. Currently Alberta enforces a reduction of emissions by 12 percent with a max price of $15 per tonne.

According to the newly released documents CAPP is fighting for a weakened regulatory position, one that requires a 20 per cent reduction with a $20 penalty fee.

As the Pembina Institute points out, CAPP's proposed regulatory fees would be merely tokenistic, only just keeping up with the price of inflation.

In the collection of documents released to Greenpeace’s Keith Stewart – containing correspondence records between the government of Alberta and CAPP from January to May of this year – CAPP says stricter regulations might cost industry a lot without winning over the public.

In a section of a document entitled “Framing the Right Questions” CAPP questioned Alberta’s proposed emissions targets:

“Will higher stringency requirements ‘secure’ social license and forestall negative policy action elsewhere? Unlikely. The objection to the oil sands is ideological; not a concern that Alberta’s current framework is not stringent enough. Put another way, if the 40/40 guidelines were enacted, oil sands opponents would claim that they too were insufficient.”

Beyond concerns with public perception, CAPP argued that a more advanced set of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions wouldn’t necessarily lead to a reduction in CO2 pollution. The lobby group also warned that stricter environmental regulations could restrict investment in oilsands research and development.

“Will higher stringency requirements deliver greater GHG reductions? Unlikely. The challenge with the oil sands is that current technology is not yet available for deployment to a significant degree.”

CAPP, however, threatened new regulations might be disadvantageous to industry operating in Canada.

“Will higher stringency requirements impact production and revenue? Very likely. Adding a regressive charge to the oil sands, one that bites harder at low prices than high prices, introduces additional cost and risk. This will impair recovery of marginal resource associated with existing projects. And make new projects less competitive from a portfolio perspective. And the higher costs associated with additional stringency can also impair the resources devoted to research.”

Yet a growing carbon pollution problem might in fact be the largest looming threat to the oil and gas industry, rather than tougher emissions standards.

Recently a group of 70 investors worth $3 trillion publicly pressured 45 of the biggest oil and gas companies to respond to the concern of ‘stranded assets’ – oil and gas reserves made un-exploitable due to international efforts to manage global climate change.

Investments in fossil fuel reserves have become increasingly insecure in the move toward a low-carbon economy.

Canada is heavily invested in the oil and gas sector, with a total market capitalization of $400 to $500 billion.

Despite CAPP’s positioning on the issue of “opposition to the oil sands,” it may be anemic oil and gas regulations that actually threaten the industry.

Without strengthened emission’s standards, oil and gas reserves will become an increasingly dangerous investment, compromising financial markets.

And the absence of a more ambitious regulatory regime guarantees that both Alberta and Canada will continue to fail to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets.

As the Pembina Institute reports, CAPP’s proposed standards “would see oilsands emissions grow from 55 million tonnes (Mt) today to between 95 and 98 Mt in 2020. The cost to companies would grow from 10 cents a barrel today to a maximum of 23 cents a barrel. Overall, the proposal would fail to even achieve Alberta’s 2020 target – a goal that’s far weaker than the 2020 target that Ottawa has adopted.”

Alberta accounts for 48 per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. 

A new poll also shows a majority of Canadians feel climate leadership on the international stage should be a high priority for the nation.

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.

The depth of the Canadian government’s tar sands PR strategy was further revealed yesterday in a collection of nearly 1,000 pages of emails between Canadian diplomats in the United States. The correspondence dates back to August 2011 when protests movements focused on the Alberta tar sands began to spread across the continent. Toronto-based conservation group Environmental Defence obtained the documents through access to information legislation.

In an effort specifically designed to promote the Keystone XL pipeline south of the border, the government has been targeting journalists from major American news outlets, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Time and prominent trade publication E & E Daily, in order to “develop Canada’s network of reporters covering energy issues.” Canadian diplomats took reporters to lunch and then filed reports about strengthening the relationship between diplomats and journalists.

Chris Plunkett, a spokesperson for Canada’s Washington embassy, indicated these efforts were just par for the course when it comes to activities that have an impact on the Canadian economy. He said the Canadian government “strongly supports the expansion of the Keystone pipeline and the embassy continues to advocate for its approval which will contribute to energy security and economic growth for both Canada and the U.S.”

Adding emphasis to apparent intentions to sway American media, a series of emails going all the way up to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird shows the extent of the Conservatives’ response to negative media attention. An editorial in the New York Times that maligned the Keystone project prompted the department to draft a letter to the editor signed by Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer.

Records also show that Canadian diplomats are keeping tabs on Canadian journalists in the US, warning officials of reports about the Forward on Climate rally that drew roughly 35,000 protestors to the White House lawn on February 17th.

Doer recently downplayed the importance of the thousands of protesters who gathered in Washington, DC, for the historic rally. He dismissed opposition to the pipeline among Americans saying those opposed to Keystone are no more than an “outspoken minority” and that 65 percent of Americans are in favour of importing Canadian oil.

The documents show that some Canadians are also displeased with Doer’s use of their own media to lobby for Keystone, responding to an editorial he wrote in a Canadian newspaper with emails telling him to “get his facts straight.”

This information is the latest in a string of reports and documents that point to the Harper government’s attempts to expand the tar sands while downplaying their negative impact on the environment.

Since taking office, Harper has been roundly criticized by the international community for his stance on climate change, but instead of responding with a commitment to developing green energy sources, the Conservative government put together a task force to further push Canadian oil down south.

Last year, in response to a US campaign to combat Alberta tar sands development led by conservation group ForestEthics, Harper launched a campaign of his own, sending a delegation of Canadian diplomats to target Fortune 500 companies to combat so-called misinformation. The documents gave no indication of what that misinformation might be.

In addition to highlighting the Conservative government’s continued push to promote the export of Alberta crude even in the face of massive opposition in both Canada and the US, these documents also once again underscore the flaws in the federal freedom of information policies.

Under Canadian Access to Information legislation, the documents should have been released no later than 30 days after the application was made. Environmental Defence filed the request more than a year ago, and the documents they received were heavily redacted.

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.

Companies responsible for two separate oil spills in Alberta failed to provide adequate oversight for their operations, according to federal government documents released by Environment Canada through Access to Information legislation.

The documents detail how Devon Canada and Gibson Energy violated environmental laws, including the federal Fisheries Act, when their operations cause two oil spills into fish-bearing waterways in 2010.

Gibson Energy, a midstream pipeline operator, spilled a few hundred litres of oil into an Edmonton creek after failing to properly abandon an unused pipeline. According to a warning letter issued to the company from Environment Canada, "Gibson Energy ULC made a business decision to keep the Kinder Morgan lateral full of crude oil and to not purge it with nitrogen."

The pipeline released a "brown foamy substance" into the waterway, indicating the pipeline suffered internal corrosion. "Based on information obtained, I have reason to believe Gibson Energy ULC was responsible for the release of a deleterious substance into (a creek) leading to the North Saskatchewan River and they were not duly diligent in preventing this release," wrote an Edmonton-based inspector and Environment Canada fisheries inspector, Deanna Cymbaluk.

Violations of this kind can encur a fine of up to $1 million or three years in prison in Canada. Similar infractions in the United States are often met with heavy fines and penalties levied against operators.

When Postmedia's Mike De Souza contacted Gibson Energy, communications manager Nicole Collard, refused to comment on the two-year old file, saying "we're not interested in participating in this." The Alberta regulator Energy Resources Conservation Board issued Gibson a "high-risk non-compliance" order for "improperly discontinuing/abandoning a pipeline."

An additional spill, of 350,000 litres, or the equivalent of 3,000 barrels of oil, occurred when a blowout could not be contained for 36 hours by Devon Canada, a major operator in the tar sands.

At the time Devon was conducting steam-assisted gravity drainage oil production, a process that uses steam to heat underground bitumen, allowing the viscous substance to more freely flow up a well-bore. The relatively new technique poses new operational challenges industry may not always be prepared for.

In this instance, Devon lost control of the procedure at its Jackfish facility after a combination of human error and damage cause by sand erosion caused a well failure. According to Environment Canada's Cymbaluk, Devon had "poorly documented protocols" and a "lack of planning for a well failure" at the time of the accident.

Tim Waters, manager of operations engineering at Devon told Postmedia "there were certain risk areas around the well-head and how the wells were operated that we didn't fully understand, quite honestly."

Devon is one of many tar sands operators hoping to improve their image through public relations campaigns. Recently Devon released a series of television commercials intended to highlight the company's environmental stewardship at its Jackfish facility.

Greenpeace's Keith Stewart suggests the commercials can't undo the industry's operational shortcomings: "When the oil industry's poster child for clean water can't stop a blow-out for 36 hours, it makes me wish we had stronger truth-in-advertising laws in this country."

Waters, however, maintains the commercials are accurate and demonstrate Devon's concern for the environment.

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.