This was supposed to be the week when the federal government made a decision on a massive new oilsands mine — one that, no matter the outcome, was sure to aggrandize a roiling, existential debate over the future of the oilsands themselves.

There has been no shortage of headlines swirling around Alberta’s oilsands and the fate of the Frontier mine: Some warned that approval would “kill [Canada’s] emissions targets.”

Others, like Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, said a rejection meant Canada is aiming to “phase out” the oilsands.

On Feb. 23, with just a few days until the decision deadline, Teck Resources, one of Canada’s largest mining companies, pulled out.

It was an unexpected move, even though Teck itself had long raised doubts about whether the Frontier project would ever be built, approval or not — particularly as it relied on oil prices that are much higher than current market reality.  

In a letter to Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s minister of environment and climate change, Teck’s CEO Donald Lindsay offered myriad reasons for the decision, including that “global capital markets are changing rapidly and investors and customers are increasingly looking for jurisdictions to have a framework in place that reconciles resource development and climate change.”

Advocates, political leaders and pundits were quick to weigh in. 

For Premier Kenney, the surprise pull-out was a result of “federal regulatory uncertainty and the current lawless opposition to resource development.”

For Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, it was “devastating news” and a result of the way “Justin Trudeau’s inaction has emboldened radical activists.”

Alberta’s former NDP Minister of Environment Shannon Phillips said the company pulled out of the proposal because “Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan has been dismantled” by the UCP.

For others, it was a “a signal victory,” a result of “unprecedented public backlash” and “great organizing” — or the logical outcome, because “high-cost, high-carbon projects are no longer economically realistic in [a] world that is taking climate change seriously.” 

With so much political spin swirling around this latest development, we thought it was a good time to pull back for just a minute and recap what else is going on in Alberta’s oilsands. 

We hear so much about them, both across the country and around the world. 

Few of us have seen them for ourselves. 

Read on for an overview of just how much oil the oilsands produces, how much carbon pollution it emits, what’s actually happening on (and under) the ground, how the whole thing fits (or not) into Canada’s climate goals — and a little tidbit on another time a massive oilsands project was cancelled at the 11th hour.

1. Does all of Canada’s oil come from the oilsands?

Whether through conventional wells, fracking, or off-shore drilling, Canada’s vast oil reserves can be accessed in a myriad of ways. But 96 per cent of Canada’s proven oil reserves are located in the oilsands, according to Natural Resources Canada.

The oilsands accounted for 64 per cent of Canada’s total oil production in 2018 — that’s 2.9 million barrels per day.

2. So, what does oil production in the oilsands actually look like?

The Alberta oilsands are most well-known for their massive open-pit mines and associated tailings ponds. They are criticized as being “the largest (and most destructive) industrial project in human history” and for looking “like a war zone.”

Open-pit mining in the Alberta oilsands requires digging up boreal forest in order to extract vast quantities of bitumen. The Frontier mine would have covered an area of 292 square kilometres roughly 110 kilometres north of the oilsand’s industrial heart near Fort McMurray. Photo: Louis Bockner / Sierra Club BC

But not all oil from the oilsands comes from the open-pit mines for which the industry is famous — it’s actually just under half of production. 

Currently, more than half — 53 per cent — of oil produced from the oilsands is extracted through another method: in-situ technology, which is very different from open-pit mining. In-situ oil development involves drilling two horizontal wells deep below the surface. In steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), the most common in-situ method used in the oilsands, steam is pumped into one well and oil is pumped out the other.

Bitumen from the Alberta oilsands is extracted using steam assisted gravity drainage or SAGD, an in-situ method, at Nexen’s Long Lake facility. Photo: Jason Woodhead / Flickr

In-situ production typically involves a lot less land disturbance (no strip mining), but is responsible for more carbon pollution per barrel produced.

Only 20 per cent of the oil reserves found in the oilsands can be accessed through open-pit mining. The other 80 per cent is too deep below the surface for open pit extraction so it is accessed through in-situ production.

3. What was the Frontier mine project, again?

There are already seven open-pit mining projects in the oilsands. Had it been approved, Teck’s Frontier oilsands mine would have been the eighth.

The Frontier mine was one of the largest, if not the largest, oilsands mines ever proposed in Alberta.

Open-pit mining requires the removal of what’s known in the industry as “overburden.” In northern Alberta, the overburden consists of boreal forest, wetlands, peatland and soil. 

The Frontier project would have involved permanently stripping away 14,000 hectares of wetland, 3,000 hectares of peatland and 3,000 hectares of old-growth forest.

A small body of water at the proposed site of Teck Resources’ Frontier Mine, 30 kilometres south of Wood Buffalo National Park. It would have been one of the largest mines ever constructed in Alberta’s oilsands. Photo: Louis Bockner / Sierra Club BC

4. So, the tailings ponds situation. What’s that all about?

Since the oilsands started operations in the 1960s, an estimated 1.5 trillion litres of tailings — a mixture of waste water, clay, sand and petrochemical residues — have accumulated in containment ponds built near oilsands operations.

Tailings ponds, contained behind large dams, are designed to prevent industrial waste water considered highly toxic, including arsenic, benzene, lead and mercury, from contaminating the local environment.

Alberta’s tailings pond are enormous, spanning some 220 square kilometres, nearly a quarter the size of the city of Calgary or twice the size of Vancouver.

One single tailings pond, located at a Syncrude operation, is contained by the largest dam in the world, holding 540,000,000 cubic meters of material.

Tailings ponds in the oilsands are unlined and there have been documented cases of contamination leaking from these pits into the Athabasca River. NAFTA even conducted an investigation into the threat tailings ponds pose to the environment.

There are currently no known methods for cleaning up the tailings ponds, although industry has considered ‘capping’ the unlined pits with fresh water to create ‘end pit lakes,’ a proposal that has been heavily criticized.

The group Environmental Defence advocates against the creation of any new tailings ponds in the oilsands, “until industry successfully demonstrates that it is capable of properly reclaiming them.”

In the last 50 years, Alberta’s oilsands companies have only received reclamation certificates for about 0.1 per cent of the total land disturbed, according to the Pembina Institute. Industry reports it has put reclamation efforts into about seven per cent of land affected by tailings — but it has not yet received final regulatory certification to confirm that.

Alberta’s tailings pond are enormous, spanning some 220 square kilometres, nearly a quarter the size of the city of Calgary or twice the size of Vancouver. Photo: Alex MacLean

5. What impact do the oilsands have on the climate?

Crude oil produced in the oilsands is the most emissions-intensive oil in North America.

The Oil-Climate Index, which ranks various sources of crude oil on the continent, consistently places Canada’s Athabasca sweet synthetic crude oil at the top of its ranking of oil sources arranged by carbon emissions per barrel of oil produced.

According to the government of Alberta, the oilsands are currently responsible for 70 megatonnes of emissions annually. 

To put that in the national context, in 2017, Canada’s total carbon pollution was just over 716 megatonnes, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the group representing the oil and gas industry, says on its website that oilsands developments “account for 10 per cent of Canada’s [greenhouse gas] emissions.”

The Canadian Energy Research Institute — funded in part by industry associations — estimates the oilsands will be responsible for 100 megatonnes of emissions by 2026, a substantial increase when the country has committed to a dramatic overall reduction.

But, increasingly, estimates of oilsands carbon pollution provided by the provincial government and industry are being called into question.

6. Are oilsands emissions estimates accurate?

It depends on whom you ask.

There are concerns that the Alberta government and industry are underestimating the total carbon pollution coming from the oilsands.

Recent reports suggest that the federal government disputes Alberta’s estimates of emissions stemming from the oilsands, pegging the total at 87 megatonnes this year, nearly 30 per cent higher than Alberta government estimates.

A study published last April in the journal Nature, led by air-quality scientists with the federal government, also found the emissions associated with oilsands production were much higher than industry reported. 

Using aircraft to collect on-site data, the researchers found significant “discrepancies” — to the tune of 30 per cent — between what they were measuring and what companies were reporting. 

“The overall impact of the differences between measured and reported [greenhouse gas] emissions found here is large,” they wrote.

Canada has set ambitious targets to reduce nationwide carbon pollution — goals which will leave the oilsands behind if rapid changes aren’t made.

Syncrude’s Mildred Lake refinery in the oilsands. Photo: Alex MacLean

7. What are we doing about all this carbon pollution?

Canada’s climate commitments peg our mid-century greenhouse gas emissions target at 80 per cent below 2005 levels, which is the equivalent of a total national greenhouse gas emissions budget of 150 megatonnes by 2050. 

This means the oilsands, if changes aren’t made, could account for more than one-half of the country’s entire carbon budget.

A December poll found 76 per cent of Canadians think the country needs to be “doing more” when it comes to climate change, while 64 per cent said “Canada should capitalize on the global need for fossil fuels.” 

Climate change was reported to be the number one issue in the most recent federal election. 

But climate action is tricky in Canada, where the provinces exercise jurisdiction over natural resource projects and their environmental impacts. Canada has requested Alberta impose provincial restrictions on oilsands emissions but the province has been slow to respond (see #8).

Syncrude’s upgrading facility at the company’s Mildred Lake oilsands site. Photo: Alex MacLean

8. Wasn’t there talk of capping the total emissions of the oilsands?

Yes, but there’s a catch.

Alberta’s previous NDP government passed legislation in 2016 introducing a 100-megatonne cap on total emissions from the oilsands.

But no regulations were ever introduced to set that cap in motion. Kenney originally made it clear he intended to scrap the cap, but has since said he’s “prepared to be pragmatic.”

The government of Alberta’s website still says it will “seek the advice of the industry, regulators, environmental organizations and Indigenous and Metis communities on the implementation of the 100 megatonne limit,” although there are still no plans in place for regulations.

Wilkinson recently told CBC, “if you take all of the various projects that have already been approved in the oilsands and you assume all of them get built, you’re talking about 130 megatonnes.” He is pushing for regulations to be developed to ensure this doesn’t happen.

Latest oilsands mega mine proposal a reality check for Alberta’s emissions cap

As former Natural Resources Minister Amerjeet Sohi put it, “a cap without regulations is meaningless.” 

Just last week, Wilkinson asked his provincial counterpart in Alberta to “follow through and fully implement its legislation to limit emissions to 100 million tonnes from the oilsands.” 

But even if emissions from the oilsands were capped at 100 megatonnes, they would still take up two-thirds of Canada’s total emissions budget by 2050.

9. Is the industry getting better at reducing carbon pollution?

You’ve heard it once and you’ll hear it again. The oil and gas industry and its supporters (like the Alberta government) say the emissions intensity of oil produced in the oilsands is decreasing.

That was stated in an open letter signed by the CEOs of three major oil and gas companies last year. “We’ve reduced the emissions intensity in the oilsands by about 30 per cent over the past two decades,” they wrote, adding “a number of oilsands operations are producing oil with a smaller greenhouse gas impact than the global average.”

But the truth is more complicated.

As Macleans magazine put it in a 2019 article about emissions trends in the oilsands: “in the race to tell a better story, oilsands advocates — including the ones elected to political office — will reach for the best-sounding proclamations they can extract from the sludge of data.”

Yes, the oilsands have become more efficient at producing usable crude from the thick sludge that is mined at the oilsands — a process companies have been working on for half a century. 

How the carbon pollution from a barrel of oilsands crude compares to crude oil from other parts of the world is a different question, which has been studied more extensively in recent years. 

As a 2019 article published in the journal Science put it, “extraction and processing of heavy oils and oilsands with current technologies is very energy and carbon-intensive.” And, the authors noted, “the ability to reduce the intensities is challenging.”

The same paper found oil produced in Canada (remember that the majority of Canadian oil comes from the oilsands) was far more carbon intensive than the global average.

Canada’s oil ranked fourth in the world in terms of emissions intensity, trailing only behind Venezuela, Cameroon and Algeria.

Decisions by investors, from central banks to pensions to global investment funds, to pull out of oilsands projects have revolved around the relative intensity of emissions from oilsands crude.

10. Is producing oil from the oilsands economical?

Producing oil from Alberta’s oilsands is expensive, and some economists have their doubts about how long it will remain profitable.

“One thing that many people fail to realize is just how important the global price of oil is for the level of economic activity in Alberta’s oil and gas sector,” Jennifer Winter, assistant professor of economics at the University of Calgary, told The Narwhal last year.

As Jeff Rubin, former chief economist with CIBC World Markets, previously told The Narwhal, it all depends on world oil prices, which are by no means guaranteed.

“Look at the returns you’ve gotten from the oilsands over the last five to six years,” Rubin said. “And consider how viable that resource will be if, in fact, the world does mitigate climate change.” 

He noted that global action on climate change in the long-term could further reduce world oil demand, pushing prices lower.

Alberta oil doesn’t do well when prices are low. It’s more expensive to produce than in other jurisdictions, like Saudi Arabia.

Rubin also told The Narwhal that oil in other jurisdictions like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be economically viable for much longer than Alberta’s high-cost oilsands. “That’s the kind of oil that’d be the most commercially sustainable, if in fact we’re going to mitigate climate change,” he said.  

All of this leaves the economic future of Alberta’s oilsands up for debate.

Heavy haulers in the oilsands mines carry loads of up 400 tons and cost approximately $5-6 million each. Hauler tires, with a lifespan of about on year, cost $50,000 each. Photo: Alex MacLean

11. Isn’t this all kind of … déjà vu?

Yep.

“The Canadian government … is totally responsible for the failure of the [oilsands project],” wrote a Globe and Mail reader in 1982. At that time, the country was up in arms about the recent cancellation of the Alsands oilsands mine, first proposed in December 1978 and approved in 1979. The company said economic concerns were responsible for the cancellation.

The reader went on: “Almost no one expected the government to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, but kill it they did. Now what? How much longer is the Canadian public going to put up with an interventionist government that has a growing adversary relationship with business?”

The Alsands project had promised thousands of jobs and billions in economic revenue.

Almost forty years later, it’s hard not to see some parallels between that ill-fated project and Teck’s proposal to build the massive Frontier oilsands mine in northern Alberta.

Like Frontier, Alsands was hailed as a cure to economic woes. Its success was seen as a litmus test for the future of huge oil projects. And it failed.

A 1983 article in the Globe and Mail blamed the project’s cancellation, at least in part, on “a deteriorating world oil market.”

Headlines about Alsands project ran in papers across the continent, including the New York Times, which wrote, “Alsands was one of several projects that Canada was counting on to revive its lagging economy.”

And sweeping statements about the future of the oilsands were common, too. The 1982 headline in the Edmonton Journal asked if this meant the “end of megaprojects.”

Here we are again — but this time the project cancellation comes in the midst of a much larger and potentially game-changing debate about how the oilsands fit into Canada’s plans to combat the growing climate crisis.

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

There’s a huge oilsands project that’s getting a lot of attention these days — and it’s not the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

A massive new oilsands mine project — widely thought to be the largest Alberta will ever build — is awaiting final federal approval from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet.

The Teck Frontier mine would cover 24,000 hectares — an area twice the size of the City of Vancouver — and would produce 260,000 barrels of bitumen each day at its peak. The proposal includes plans to produce oil starting in 2026, and to continue on producing right through to the 2060s.

Having been under review for several years, the mine’s fate now rests in the hands of the federal government.

And as the February deadline for a final decision approaches, pressure is mounting on all sides of the issue.

Increasingly, the Frontier mine is being seen as a bet on the long-term economic viability of the oilsands themselves.

At the same time, critics say its approval would be in direct opposition to Canada’s climate commitments.

This comes just as a new report out from the Global Gas and Oil Network found that Canada is second only to the United States in planned expansion of the oil and gas industry.

“New oil and gas development in Canada between now and 2050 could unlock an additional 25 [gigatonnes of carbon dioxide], more than doubling cumulative emissions from the sector,” the report found.

Teck would make up nearly 20 per cent of those additional emissions.

We rounded up what the major players are saying about the mine — and it should come as no surprise that opinions are polarized on whether it should move forward.

1. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney thinks it’s essential for the Alberta oil and gas industry

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is for the mine. All for it.

He sees its approval as a vote from Ottawa for — or against — Alberta oil.

“If this project does not proceed, it would be a clear indication that there is no way forward for this country’s largest natural resource,” Kenney said this week in a speech in Ottawa.

It “must be done,” he said of the Frontier approval, citing Teck’s estimate that the project will create thousands of jobs.

He also cited the conditional support of Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adam — who he noted has taken James Cameron, Jane Fonda and Leonardo DiCaprio on tours of the oilsands — for the project. (Buuuut that comes with a caveat, more on that in #5.)

As The Globe and Mail put it this week, Kenney is “pitching Ottawa’s options on Frontier as the environment versus Canadian unity.”

2. Teck Resources isn’t sure it will ever make economic sense to build the mine

Teck Resources previously told The Narwhal it “is committed to advancing Frontier in a socially and environmentally responsible manner” and has projected huge economic returns for Canadian governments at all levels should the project go ahead — to the tune of $70 billion in royalties and taxes.

But the company’s 2018 annual report, released this February, is less confident.

“There is uncertainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the resources” to be mined at the proposed Frontier site, according to the report.

That raises questions about whether the mine will ever be built, even if it is approved.

3. A review panel recommended the federal government approve the mine, despite ‘significant adverse environmental effects’

The joint federal-provincial panel, comprised of three appointed members, recommended earlier this year that the federal government approve the mine proposal, noting “the Frontier project will provide significant economic benefits for the region, Alberta and Canada.”

The panel cited Teck Resources’ estimates of how much tax and royalty revenue will be generated by the project, and projections for job creation during construction and operation.

The panel also noted “significant adverse environmental effects,” including the removal of 3,000 hectares of old-growth forest, effects on biodiversity, significant impacts on local wildlife species like wood bison, Canada lynx and woodland caribou, and the disturbance of 14,000 hectares of wetlands — including the “irreversible” loss of 3,000 hectares of peatland, a highly sensitive and important carbon sink.

4. The federal Green Party wants the mine rejected because it hampers Canada’s ability to meet its climate commitments

Earlier this week, the federal Green party called on Trudeau and his cabinet to reject the Frontier Mine project.

“Going ahead with construction of the Frontier mine would contribute six megatons of CO2 per year from production alone,” Green Party interim leader Jo-Ann Roberts said in a press release.

“This would seriously compromise our ability to reach the emissions reduction targets set out in the Paris Agreement,” she said.

Canada reaffirmed its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, compared to 2005 levels, at the Paris climate conference in 2015.

That translates to 150 megatonnes of total emissions nationwide by 2050. The Teck Frontier mine is expected to produce between four and six megatonnes per year, depending on who you ask, which would mean this one oilsands project would eat up three to four per cent of all of the emissions allowed across the entire country in 2050.

Former Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, who is in Madrid for the COP25 summit, echoed Roberts’ call.

“There is absolutely no wiggle room in the global carbon budget for any kind of expansion of oil and gas production,” May said in the press release.

5. A prominent First Nations chief is having second thoughts

Teck has announced that it has secured approval of all 14 local Indigenous groups, but Athabasca Chipewyan Chief Allan Adam recently told CBC he’s not pleased with the steps the company, or the province, have taken to mitigate environment damages associated with the project.

“This would be the first time that the Alberta government is killing its own oilsand project,” he said this week.

“We are not just going to take hot air anymore.”

He’s not alone. Indigenous youth from Canada attending the COP 25 summit in Madrid have also recently expressed concerns over the Frontier mine, which would be just 25 kilometres south of Wood Buffalo National Park.

“This is taking us in the wrong direction,” Eriel Deranger, a member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and executive director of Indigenous Climate Action, told CBC in Madrid.

6. Economists worry about the long-term viability of the mine

The Frontier mine project is based on higher oil prices than the world is currently seeing — and is premised on the notion that oil prices will increase in the long term.

“Prices are forecast to be US$80 to US$90 per barrel by 2020, and increasing thereafter,” Teck said in a 2016 submission to the review panel. Currently, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil price is just below $60 USD per barrel.

In its low-price scenario, Teck assumed an average WTI price $76.51 per barrel and a high-price scenario of $115 per barrel.

Economists say that if the world does take mitigating the climate crisis seriously, that could have an impact on world oil demand — a sizeable impact.

It “would require not only do we not see business-as-usual growth in world oil demand — roughly over one per cent per year — but that we would see anywhere from a 20 to 50 per cent decline in world oil demand over the next 30 to 40 years,” economist Jeff Rubin told The Narwhal last year.

And a reduction in oil demand would reduce oil prices. That, Rubin said, “would shut-in production in places like the oilsands… because their cost of production would no longer be supported by oil prices.”

Gordon Laxer, a political economist and professor emeritus at the University of Alberta, points out that other oil-producing states can produce oil much cheaper than the Alberta oilsands.

“Saudi Arabia produces oil for just a tiny fraction of what Alberta does,” he told The Narwhal last fall. “That oil will have a much longer lifespan than sands oil.”

7. A recently retired Suncor CEO projected last year that new large-scale projects are unlikely to be built in Alberta’s oilsands

Late last year, the province’s latest oilsands development, the Fort Hills Mine, had its grand opening. (Teck has a 23 per cent share in Fort Hills, its first foray into the oilsands. The Frontier mine would be its second.)

At that celebration, Suncor now-retired chief executive Steve Williams predicted a slow future for the oilsands, telling an interviewer that “it’s unlikely there will be projects of this type of scale again.”

8. Canada’s new Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Jonathan Wilkinson, is still figuring it all out

Though he’s only a few weeks into his new post as Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Jonathan Wilkinson is already facing questions about his government’s upcoming decision on the Frontier mine.

“The issues around greenhouse gases associated with the project are absolutely relevant to the decision that the federal cabinet will need to take,” Wilkinson told The Globe and Mail this week.

“Any decision [cabinet] needs to take will certainly be in the context of the commitments we have made on the climate plan.”

Wilkinson acknowledged that he’s heard Kenney’s calls for the mine to be approved, loud and clear.

“Premier Kenney has made it very clear that the Teck project is important for him, but ultimately we’re going to have to try to find a way to navigate through a decision and project that has a number of challenges,” he told The Globe and Mail.

“I can’t prejudge the decision of the federal cabinet, but what I can tell you is that the issue around the greenhouse gases associated with that project will be very much relevant to the decision that cabinet will take.”

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.

On Thursday, a joint review panel — representing the federal and Alberta governments — released its recommendations on whether a massive new open-pit mine in the oilsands should proceed.

It recommended Teck’s Frontier Mine get the green light, despite finding it will have significant and permanent impacts on the environment. 

The decision now moves to Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine Mckenna, who has until February to issue a decision.

Environmental concerns flagged by the panel include the removal of old-growth forests, the destruction or permanent alteration of fish habitat, the release of a large amount of carbon pollution and the loss of wetlands and areas of “high species diversity potential.” 

But, overall, the panel found these impacts were outweighed by economic benefits, saying “the project is in the public interest.”

Here are 10 things you need to know about this proposed new mine.

1. It’s really, really big. 

The Frontier mine would be the furthest north in the oilsands, just 25 kilometres south of Wood Buffalo National Park. It would cover 24,000-hectares (roughly double the size of the City of Vancouver) and would produce 260,000 barrels of bitumen each day at its peak, making it one of the largest oilsands mines — if not the largest — to ever be built in Alberta. This would take up about half of the additional volume created by the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Bison in Wood Buffalo National Park. Photo: Louis Bockner / Sierra Club BC

The mine is expected to have a 41-year lifespan, taking us to 2081 by the time it’s completely shut down. By then, scientists have predicted that climate change will have already had far-reaching effects on Alberta — including dramatically shifting the average temperatures in Canadian cities.

2. The Frontier mine will make it super difficult for Canada to meet its climate commitments.

At the Paris climate conference in 2015, Canada reaffirmed its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent (compared to 2005 levels) by 2030 and by 80 per cent by 2050.

What that means in reality is that the entire country can emit 150 megatonnes of emissions by 2050. The Teck Frontier mine is expected to produce four megatonnes per year, equal to three per cent of all of the emissions allowed in Canada in 2050. 

“The oilsands are Canada’s fastest-growing source of emissions,” Gordon Laxer, a political economist and professor emeritus at the University of Alberta, told The Narwhal last fall. “Their growth is going to make it virtually impossible to meet our 2030 Paris climate targets.” 

Last fall, The Narwhal asked Jeff Rubin, former chief economist with CIBC World Markets and a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, whether new oilsands mines make sense in the face of global climate change and changing world demand for oil. 

Rubin told The Narwhal that meeting climate commitments “would require not only do we not see business-as-usual growth in world oil demand … but that we would see anywhere from a 20 to 50 per cent decline in world oil demand over the next 30 to 40 years, which would shut-in productions in places like the oilsands … because their cost of production would no longer be supported by oil prices.”

“If the world does avert the worst consequences of climate change, whether that’s 1.5 or 2 degrees, we’re going to see a significant reduction in world oil demand,” Rubin said.

Teck’s Frontier mine is proposing operations through 2066.

3. Nearly 3,000 hectares of old-growth forest will be cut down to make room for the mine.

The area where the proposed mine will be built is wild — wetlands, peatlands and forests of jackpine, aspen, spruce and poplar. Some of these forests are over a century old. 

Approximately 2,598 hectares of these old-growth forests will be removed for the mine to be built. 

Old-growth takes a long time to re-establish itself, even with extensive reclamation efforts, because it’s, um, old. 

The panel’s report says “there may be a loss of habitat for many species reliant on such forests, including species at risk, for at least 100 years following closure in 2081.”

4. The predicted economic benefits of the project are based on oil prices not seen in years.

In projections for the economic benefits of the project, the company used “an average long-term real oil price of US$95 per barrel for West Texas Intermediate” — a price not seen since 2014 — to calculate its base case for the economic impact of the project.

“Prices are forecast to be US$80 to US$90 per barrel by 2020, and increasing thereafter,” Teck said in a 2016 submission. 

In its low-price scenario, Teck assumed an average WTI price of $76.51 per barrel and a high-price scenario of $115 per barrel. As of this writing, the price for WTI crude oil was under $60 per barrel — and has only reached $75 once since November 2014.

“The panel understands that there is considerable uncertainty regarding forecasts for future oil prices,” the report states. Nevertheless, the panel reiterated Teck’s prediction that the project will yield “$55 billion to Alberta in taxes and royalties.”

“The Frontier project will provide significant economic benefits for the region, Alberta, and Canada,” the panel concluded.

5. The company itself seems unsure if the mine makes sense.

It seems Teck has its own doubts about whether the project makes economic sense.

The company’s 2018 annual report, released this February, says “there is uncertainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the resources” to be mined at the proposed Frontier site.

Other oil executives have expressed similar sentiments. At the Fort Hills grand opening, now-retired Suncor chief executive Steve Williams told reporters that “it’s unlikely there will be projects of this type of scale again.”

6. The mine will mean “irreversible” loss of 14,000 hectares of wetlands.

According to the review panel’s findings, wetlands cover nearly 45 per cent of the area studied, amounting to 14,000 hectares.

The Frontier project will remove all wetlands from the project development area, something the panel acknowledged is likely not reversible. “A substantial amount of wetland and old-growth forest habitat will be lost entirely or lost for an extended period as a result of the Frontier project,” the panel’s report states.

Far left: Wood Buffalo National Park salt plains. Centre and right: Aerial view of Wood Buffalo National Park’s famed wetlands. Photo: Louis Bockner / Sierra Club BC

The loss of this amount of these areas is an impact the panel describes as “a high-magnitude and irreversible project effect.”

7. Nobody’s quite sure how or when the site will be cleaned up.

The ability of companies to pay for cleanup once resources have been extracted has ignited a debate over mind-boggling environmental liabilities in recent years — and whether taxpayers might ultimately end up footing the bill.

“There are uncertainties associated with final reclamation outcomes.”

The panel’s report highlights some of the difficulties associated with Teck’s reclamation plans. 

“Some habitat types cannot be reclaimed (e.g., peatlands),” the report states. 

Over 3,000 hectares of peatland will be destroyed by the mine’s construction — “an irreversible loss” according to the panel’s report — accounting for 10 per cent of the project area.

The report also warns that cleanup may take a long time for sensitive areas, noting “reclamation will not occur or be complete for many years.”

In its report, the panel acknowledges the long-term cleanup is not guaranteed, though it also writes “this is expected at this stage of the process.” 

“There are uncertainties associated with final reclamation outcomes,” the panel wrote.

8. The Frontier mine is owned by a company mainly associated with coal mining.

The Frontier mine would be the second major foray into the oilsands for Vancouver-based Teck Resources.

The company has coal, zinc and copper operations across North and South America, but recently made its big debut in the Alberta oilsands with a 21 per cent interest in the Fort Hills Energy Limited Partnership, which owns the Fort Hills open-pit mine.

Fort Hills had its grand opening last fall.

Teck says on its website that “responsible environmental management is an integral part of who we are as a company,” but the company has faced criticism for its environment record in the past. Last winter, The Narwhal investigated long-term selenium pollution at one of the company’s B.C. operations.

9. Teck agreed to give up leases on Crown land so a new park could be created.

Teck was one of three companies that voluntarily gave up leases on crown land earlier this year so that a new wildland provincial park could be created in the area.

The 161,880-hectare Kitaskino Nuwenene Wildland Provincial Park was created in response to requests from Mikisew Cree First Nation to allow for a buffer zone around Wood Buffalo National Park. The new wildland provincial park will allow for traditional activities to continue without the threat of further oilsands encroachment.

Wildland provincial parks are less developed than provincial parks, and the government of Alberta says on its website that Kitaskino Nuwenene Wildland Provincial Park will enable Alberta to contribute to the largest contiguous boreal protected area in the world.

10. Teck says the mine will be best-in-class. Even the federal government disputed that.

Part of Teck’s submission rests on the idea that the Frontier mine will be “best-in-class.”

Teck told The Narwhal last fall that it “will have a lower carbon intensity than about half of the oil currently refined in the United States.” Documents filed by the company claim the “project represents best-in-class for greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands developments.”

But in Environment and Climate Change Canada’s submission to the review panel, the agency wrote that “while Teck indicates its intent to make the Frontier Mine project best-in-class with respect to [greenhouse gas] emissions intensity, it is in fact 24 per cent more carbon intensive on a per-barrel basis than the best project.”

Jan Gorski, an analyst with the Pembina Institute, told The Narwhal last fall that “projects that are anything but best in class shouldn’t be approved.” 

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.

Public hearings for Teck Resources’ colossal Frontier mine project begin this week — opening an intense debate about whether and how the project’s emissions can be squared with either Alberta’s highly publicized emissions cap or Canada’s commitments to fight climate change.

The proposed mine would produce 260,000 barrels per day of bitumen at its peak, cover 24,000 thousand hectares and — during its 41-year lifespan — tap into reserves in the neighbourhood of 3.2 billion barrels.

Critics of the mine have concerns about issues ranging from impacts on Wood Buffalo National Park (just 25 kilometres from the proposed mine site), to the company’s ability to remediate the site, to whether the project would be the long-term boost for Alberta’s economy that Teck promises.

But perhaps the most controversial of all are the greenhouse gas emissions the mine will produce.

Teck says the Frontier project will produce four megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (equivalent to the annual emissions from 856,531 passenger vehicles) for each of the 41 years it is operational — and that its emissions represent the “best-in-class” when compared to other oilsands projects.

But intervenors in the hearings say that neither of these claims are true.

Not only do they assert that Teck’s calculations omit important sources of emissions, but also that they will be nowhere near “best-in-class.”

There are concerns that, because Teck’s proposed mine is poised to push past Alberta and Canada’s climate commitments, the company could also face a huge economic liability as the world moves to decrease carbon-intensive oil consumption and polluters are forced to pay more to emit.

“The Frontier project is not best in class,” Jan Gorski, an analyst with the Pembina Institute, told The Narwhal in an e-mail.

“The compatibility of the project with Canada’s climate targets has not been demonstrated and certainly projects that are anything but best in class shouldn’t be approved.”

Map of threats to Wood Buffalo National Park complied by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Best in what class?

Teck’s proposed project rests on years of analyses, estimates and projections about the viability of the project — including its impact on the climate.

According to the Oil-Climate Index, Canada’s Athabasca extra-heavy, high-sulphur bitumen produces the highest total greenhouse gas emissions per barrel in the world, but Teck has said emissions from oil produced at its Frontier mine would be among the lowest greenhouse-gas-intensity products in the oilsands.

The company also told The Narwhal that Frontier “will have a lower carbon intensity than about half of the oil currently refined in the United States,” and in documents filed by Scott McKenzie, director of regulatory and environment for Teck, the company asserts the “project represents best-in-class for greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands developments,” based on the calculation that per-barrel emissions would be 38.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent.

But numerous intervenors in the upcoming hearings — including the federal government — have raised concerns about the calculations used to come to this conclusion.

In Environment and Climate Change Canada’s submission to the review panel, the agency concluded that “while Teck indicates its intent to make the Frontier Mine project best-in-class with respect to GHG emissions intensity, it is in fact 24 per cent more carbon intensive on a per-barrel basis than the best project.”

The Oilsands Environmental Coalition (of which the Pembina Institute is a member) also doubts Teck’s claims, finding that Frontier’s emissions would be “about average” in the oilsands, and asserting “it is unlikely to achieve the best-in-class standard.”

In its submission to the Joint Review Panel, the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition points out that Frontier’s emissions would be higher than benchmarks set by Alberta’s Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation — regulations that set the standard for oilsands operations to improve their efficiency when compared to an industry average calculated by the Alberta government, with the goal of improving from year to year.

When compared to the 2026 Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation limit, the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition found “the Project’s GHG emissions intensity will be 40 per cent higher” than the limit, which is based on the emissions of the top-quarter of the best-performing bitumen mines.

“Compared to the three other oilsands mining projects that use the same technology, the Frontier mine’s emissions are the highest,” Gorski of the Pembina Institute said.

“New oilsands projects should be required to demonstrate that their GHG emissions intensity is at least as good as the top quartile performers,” the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition concluded.

“Alberta and Canada will be unlikely to meet their [greenhouse gas] targets if sub-par projects are allowed to proceed.”

One of the largest oilsands mines ever proposed advances to public hearings

Critics say Teck lowballing emissions

There are also concerns about whether Teck’s estimates of its annual emissions — four megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year — are grossly underestimated.

The Oil Sands Environmental Coalition found the greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed mine would be substantially higher than the company’s estimates, owing to omissions of sources of greenhouse gas associated with the project.

Gorski told the Narwhal that Teck’s estimate “doesn’t include emissions created during the production of fuel used on site, land use changes or downstream emissions from refining and end-use combustion.”

The Oil Sands Environmental Coalition concluded that actual annual greenhouse gas emissions would be an “additional 48 per cent above Teck’s GHG emission estimate.”

The Council of Canadians, another intervenor in the hearings, has also concluded emissions will be substantially higher than four megatonnes per year.

Bronwen Tucker, Prairies-Northwest Territories regional organizer for The Council of Canadians, told The Narwhal that Teck may well be able to reduce emissions in some areas as new technologies arise, but she is still skeptical of Teck’s emissions projections.

“That number is likely to rise over time, based on the pattern of emissions of other mines,” she said — an assertion supported by research from the Pembina Institute, which found that “the emission intensity of mining operations increased by seven per cent between 2004 and 2015.”

According to the Pembina Institute, “this trend will certainly continue as producers access deeper, lower-quality bitumen and the distance from mines to processing facilities increases.”

If this is true for the Frontier project, its emissions could rise steadily as time passes and bitumen becomes more difficult to access.

There are also concerns the emissions numbers used to calculate a project’s effect on the climate are minuscule when compared to the lifetime emissions of the oil itself — furthering the climate impacts of new oilsands developments.

“It doesn’t include combustion emissions of actually burning the bitumen that’s produced,” Tucker told The Narwhal. “That number would be ten times as high — 50 megatonnes per year if you’re looking at well-to-wheels of this mine.”

Not compatible with emissions cap

Regardless of the emissions calculations, there are concerns that the mine is practically guaranteed to be outside of Alberta’s — and Canada’s — climate commitments.

The Alberta government’s Bill 25, which sought to limit the total greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands development to 100 megatonnes, was passed in 2016 — though regulations to manage the limit are yet to be set.

Oilsands emissions are currently around 70 megatonnes each year, according to government figures. And while 30 megatonnes may seem like a lot of room to grow, many sources from across the board predict the oilsands will grow beyond that limit in the near future.

Teck has said it “believes that project greenhouse gas emissions of approximately four megatonnes per year will not exceed the 100 megatonne annual emission cap established by the provincial government.”

But even the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) — itself partly funded by industry — estimated oilsands emissions in a business-as-usual case will exceed the 100 megatonne cap in less than ten years, by 2026.

Nikki Way, an analyst with the Pembina Institute, is clear there’s no room for a new carbon-intensive mine in the oilsands.

“We’ve already given out rights that cumulatively add up to more than we’ve committed to capping,” she said.

That hasn’t stopped Teck from insisting otherwise.

“As Alberta refines the details of their climate action approach, including carbon pricing and regulation for the 100 megatonne annual limit on emissions from oilsands operations, we are confident that Frontier will fit within the framework put in place by government,” Teck said in a statement to The Narwhal.

Perhaps because of this belief, “Teck has not made any allowance for the cost of compliance within the 100 megatonne cap or the possibility of delay or suspension of the project due to the limit,” according to the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition’s submission to the Joint Review Panel.

If the oilsands do reach the 100 megatonne cap in the future, the Frontier project could theoretically be on the hook for further costs, particularly if it is not, as Environment and Climate Change Canada has pointed out, a best-in-class mine. Added costs could further undermine the project’s economic feasibility.

“Current projections show that greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands are expected to increase over time, while Canada’s climate goals require emissions to go down significantly,” said Gorski of the Pembina Institute.

“These two trends are not compatible.”

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

Last week, when a brand-new open-pit mine was officially opened in the oilsands of northern Alberta it was dubbed by some media to be an “oilsands revival.”

The Fort Hills mine is projected to be open for 50 years, with daily production peaking at 194,000 barrels.

Premier Rachel Notley, Alberta Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd and federal Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi were all on hand to celebrate the project’s opening.

If Canadians are surprised to hear about a new oilsands project — in a time of embattled pipeline delays and oil prices that still haven’t recovered — they have reason to be confused.

There’s little doubt the messaging in the media as of late has been mixed. Is the Calgary Herald right that there are “new reasons for optimism for oilsands,” or, as CBC recently put it, is it true that “the great oilsands era is over”?

Some industry heavy-hitters think it’s the latter. At the Fort Hills grand opening, Suncor chief executive Steve Williams predicted a slow future for the oilsands, telling an interviewer that “it’s unlikely there will be projects of this type of scale again.”

But while Canadians are left to wonder if Fort Hills is indeed the last big oilsands project, another massive open-pit mine — possibly the largest to ever be built in Alberta — is quietly working its way through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s approval process.

Critics worry it is an environmental and economic blunder of epic proportions.

The Frontier Mine

Vancouver-based Teck Resources — which bills itself as “Canada’s largest diversified resource company” — has been busy making inroads in Alberta’s oilsands. The company has a 23.1 per cent share in Fort Hills, and its latest oilsands proposal, the Frontier Mine, first put before regulators in 2011, will be presented at a public hearing (part of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s review of the project) beginning in Fort McMurray next week.

The proposed Frontier project would cover an area of 24,000 hectares, producing 260,000 barrels per day of bitumen at its peak. The mine would be the furthest north in the oilsands, and just 25 kilometres south of Wood Buffalo National Park. Teck estimates the bitumen resources to be tapped are in the neighbourhood of 3.2 billion barrels.

The project would be a major investment in Alberta’s high-cost oilsands and is expected to be in production for more than 40 years.

In many ways, it’s a long-term bet on the economic and environmental viability of the oilsands themselves.

“Teck is committed to advancing Frontier in a socially and environmentally responsible manner,” Chris Stannell, a spokesperson for Teck Resources, told The Narwhal in a statement. “Frontier has the potential to deliver significant value over the course of a 40+ year mine life, operating through multiple price cycles and remaining economic at a range of oil prices.”

Proposed site of Teck’s Frontier Mine 30 kilometres south of Wood Buffalo National Park. If built, it would be one of the largest mines ever constructed in Alberta’s oilsands. Photo: Louis Bockner / Sierra Club BC

But Jeff Rubin, former chief economist with CIBC World Markets and a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, questions whether there’s an economic case for the project in the first place.

“Look at the returns you’ve gotten from the oilsands over the last five to six years,” Rubin told The Narwhal. “And consider how viable that resource will be if, in fact, the world does mitigate climate change.” He noted that if the world does take action on climate change in the long-term — as many nations have committed to do — world oil demand will be forced to decline.

There are also concerns about how the proposed project could impede efforts to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions.

“Teck is putting a lot of their eggs into high-carbon developments,” Bronwen Tucker, Prairies-NWT regional organizer for The Council of Canadians (an intervenor in the Joint Review Panel hearing), told The Narwhal.

She’s concerned that new additions to Alberta’s oilsands are an anachronism when it comes to climate commitments.

Canada reaffirmed its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent (compared to 2005 levels) by 2030 at the 2015 Paris climate conference.

“The oilsands are Canada’s fastest-growing source of emissions,” Gordon Laxer, a political economist and professor emeritus at the University of Alberta, told The Narwhal. “Their growth is going to make it virtually impossible to meet our 2030 Paris climate targets.”

“The Frontier Mine is adding to that capacity, and it’s going to make it much that more difficult for Alberta and Canada to eventually wind down the sands,” he said. “And that is going to happen one way or another.”

The proposed Teck Resources Frontier mine would create an open-pit mine half the size of Edmonton in the boreal forest north of Fort McMurray. Photo: Louis Bockner / Sierra Club BC

Teck enters Alberta’s oilsands

Teck has historically been associated with coal mining — the company has interests in coal, zinc and copper across North and South America — but has recently devoted more time and energy to Alberta’s oilsands.

This past summer, the company made its social debut at the Calgary Stampede — described by Reuters as a “rodeo and corporate networking destination” — by hosting its first sponsored Stampede Reception, where Teck lobbyists mingled with Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) executives, as well as government officials, including Alberta’s Minister of Environment and Parks Shannon Phillips.

Teck has been busy arranging lobbying opportunities with various wings of the government since it filed its first registration with the Alberta Lobbyist Registry in 2017.

According to registry filings, the company has been holding meetings and making presentations in an attempt to “ensure effective and efficient climate change policies that enables responsible ongoing oilsands development” and have had “discussions with government regarding concerns with current climate change policy.”

They’ve lobbied everyone from the Office of the Premier to Alberta Environment and Parks to Alberta Energy and the Alberta Energy Regulator. Teck declined to answer specific questions from The Narwhal about its lobbying campaign in Alberta, saying only “Teck is supportive of policies to address climate change, including Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan.”

Oilsands projects blow past emissions cap

In 2016, the Alberta government passed Bill 25, which sought to limit the total greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands development to 100 megatonnes, though regulations to manage the limit are yet to be passed. Oilsands emissions are currently around 70 megatonnes each year, according to government figures.

Nikki Way, an analyst with the Pembina Institute (a member of the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition), told The Narwhal that Teck’s approval would almost certainly mean oilsands emissions would be beyond the 100 megatonne cap.

A 2017 report from the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) — funded in part by industry associations — also estimated oilsands emissions in a business-as-usual case will exceed the 100 megatonne cap. They project the cap will be exceeded in less than ten years, by 2026.

In a separate analysis, the Pembina Institute found emissions to already be higher than government figures, pegging currently operating projects at roughly 77 megatonnes. Once projects that are under construction or have received approval are added into the calculation, that number rises to 131 megatonnes, well before projects like the Frontier Mine are added in.

“According to the government of Alberta’s own data, Alberta has granted approvals that cumulatively add up to 131 megatonnes of emissions — blowing well past its own 100 megatonne oilsands limit and consuming a massive share of Canada’s own climate budget,” Way told The Narwhal. “Alarmingly, we still have no regulations to determine an equitable way to manage under that limit.”

And when projects seeking approval are added? The Pembina Institute pegs that figure at 167 megatonnes — well above the Alberta government’s 100 megatonne cap.

“Projects like Teck Frontier that are seeking approvals add up to 167 megatonnes of carbon pollution,” Way said. “If the Alberta government wants to continue approving projects, it needs to have regulations in place for the oilsands limit that ensure the province holds itself accountable to its promise to Albertans to act on climate and provide certainty to industry.”

Frontier mine’s economic viability questioned

With an expected lifetime of 41 years, the proposed Frontier project faces significant challenges as future world oil demand remains in question.

In last year’s long-term outlook for Canadian oilsands production, the industry-funded Calgary based Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) noted that supply costs for new stand-alone mines were over $70/barrel. CERI was frank about its projections for new projects, should oil prices remain low: “one can assume that these greenfield projects are not economic or [will] have to accept a lower rate of return.”

But the industry remains optimistic that oil prices will rise. CERI notes that “oil prices are expected to recover, [and] so will the profitability of oilsands projects.” Teck, too, has used optimistic projections in its assessments of the economic viability of the Frontier Mine.

In projections for the economic benefits of the project, the company used “an average long-term real oil price of US$95 per barrel for West Texas Intermediate” — a price not seen since 2014 — to calculate its base case for the economic impact of the project.

“Prices are forecast to be US$80 to US$90 per barrel by 2020, and increasing thereafter,” Teck said in a 2016 submission. In its low-price scenario, Teck assumed an average WTI price $76.51 per barrel and a high-price scenario of $115 per barrel. As of this writing, the price for WTI crude oil was under $70 per barrel — and has been under $75 since November 2014.

One might wonder if Teck updated their projected oil prices since 2016, to reflect the lower oil prices we’ve been seeing in recent years.

The company declined to answer The Narwhal’s questions about the oil prices it uses in its current analyses, but bold economic promises on their website reflect that their projections have — if anything — actually increased.

In April 2016, Teck estimated the mine would contribute “property taxes, corporate taxes and royalties in the amount of $66 billion,” to be distributed between federal, provincial and municipal governments.

Now, two years later, their website advertises the “Frontier will contribute $55 billion in provincial royalties and taxes, $12 billion in federal corporate income and capital taxes, and $3.6 billion in municipal property taxes” — which suggests a slightly higher total of over $70 billion in economic benefits to governments.

It seems Teck continues to have faith that Frontier will be profitable in coming years.

Teck’s growth aspirations run smack into world oil demand

The idea that projects like the Frontier Mine are long-term assets that will eventually become profitable, according to Rubin, is based on the idea that “inevitable, relentless 1.5 per cent annual growth in world-oil demand will eventually take prices back on side to where projects like Fort Hills do make economic sense.”

But, he added, “that’s not consistent with any of the commitments that Canada…made at COP 21 to limit global climate change to less than 2 degrees.”

“If the world does avert the worst consequences of climate change, whether that’s 1.5 or 2 degrees, we’re going to see a significant reduction in world oil demand,” Rubin said.

Meeting those commitments, he said, “would require not only do we not see business-as-usual growth in world oil demand — roughly over 1 per cent per year — but that we would see anywhere from a 20 to 50 per cent decline in world oil demand over the next 30 to 40 years, which would shut-in productions in places like the oilsands… because their cost of production would no longer be supported by oil prices.”

New greenfield developments, Rubin said, rely on the assumption that producing oil will remain profitable. But he cautions that there is much lower-cost oil elsewhere in the world. If world oil demand shrinks, Alberta’s oilsands may be the first to lose out.

“Low-cost oil [is] oil that still will be viable even if the world starts consuming less of it and prices decline,” he told The Narwhal, noting that oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be economically viable for much longer than Alberta’s high-cost oilsands. “That’s the kind of oil that’d be the most commercially sustainable, if in fact we’re going to mitigate climate change.”

Laxer agrees, calling the proposed oilsands expansion “total folley,” in the face of what he said is sure to be diminished world demand for oil. “Saudi Arabia produces oil for just a tiny fraction of what Alberta does. That oil will have a much longer lifespan than sands oil.”

That calls the long-term economic feasibility of projects like Teck — and their projections for long-term world oil price — into question.

“Some of these projects have an expected lifetime of 50 years,” Laxer said. “The ground is going to be pulled out from under them.”

It seems Teck also has its doubts. The company’s 2017 annual report presents a less rosy picture, saying “there is uncertainty that it will be commercially viable to produce any portion of the resources” slated to be tapped at the Frontier project.

But that hasn’t stopped Teck from publicly billing the project as a “major economic driver for Northern Alberta.”

Frontier mine ‘inconsistent’ with emissions targets

There are also questions about Canada’s ability to meet its federal climate targets if the Teck mine is approved.

In its submission to the Joint Review Panel, the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition made its position clear: “emissions from the Project will be inconsistent with the steps Alberta and Canada will need to take to meet Canada’s 2030 and 2050 targets.”

Cumulative emissions estimates from oilsands projects. Source: Oil Sands Environmental Coalition

Canada’s climate commitments include a mid-century greenhouse gas emissions target of 80 per cent below 2005 levels, which is the equivalent of a total national greenhouse gas emissions budget of 150 megatonnes by 2050. At four megatonnes per year, Teck’s proposed project  — which would still be operational in 2050 — would be responsible for nearly three per cent of all of the emissions in Canada, if climate targets were met.

And if emissions from the oilsands reach the 100 megatonne cap set in place by Alberta, the oilsands as a whole would also represent the majority of Canada’s total emissions under Canada’s 2050 plans.

“We can’t get to the Paris climate commitments, even at existing sands production,” Laxer told The Narwhal. “We’re supposed to be going down 30 per cent in our emissions by 2030. The sands take up 70 million tons, that’s about 10 per cent of the total emissions… If the sands are allowed to grow or stay [at current emission levels], all other sectors will have to cut emissions way more than thirty per cent in order for us to meet that level,.”

The Oil Sands Environmental Coalition’s submission highlights the effects this would have on the rest of the economy: “It is fundamentally unfair that the oilsands be allowed to grow and account for more than two-thirds of Canada’s emissions in 2050 while all other sectors of the economy decarbonize.”

“If Teck goes ahead,” Laxer told The Narwhal, “it’s going to make it that much more difficult — virtually impossible — to meet our climate targets.”

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.