A renewable energy economy may emerge from the heart of Canada’s oil industry thanks to announcements made in Alberta’s provincial budget last week. The budget promises spending $51.5 billion in 2016 despite resource royalties projected to be as low as $1.4 billion, representing a 90 per cent drop.   The province pledged $2.2 billion for clean infrastructure, $645 million for energy efficiency and unveiled an expanded carbon levy that the government estimates will generate $3.4 billion for renewable energy development. An additional $195 million has been set aside to help First Nations communities transition off coal and onto cleaner sources of energy.   “We’re very proud of our climate leadership plan as a progressive way to bend the curve on carbon,” Finance Minister Joe Ceci said in a press conference Thursday.   Sara Hastings-Simon, director of the clean economy program at the Pembina Institute, commended the province’s decision to expand the carbon levy to beyond industrial emitters.   “We know it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions in the province,” she said.

Although Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to implement a carbon tax, the levy applied only to emitters producing more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. New changes to the “polluter pays” legislation means the levy will now be economy-wide and set to scale up from $15 to $30 per tonne by 2018. 

The government forecasts the scaled-up tax will generate $9.6 billion in gross revenue over five years.   Hastings-Simon said the new legislation — which taxes all consumers at the same rate as industry — includes a rebate option for small consumers and lower income Albertans.   “At the end of the day 60 per cent of Albertans are not going to owe anything under the system,” Hastings-Simon said, adding the program is likely help the province work towards its climate targets.   “With a flat rebate you’re incentivizing folks to reduce emissions further as they end up with more money in their pockets as they reduce emissions.”   The province will also start up a new agency, Energy Efficiency Alberta, that will help homeowners reduce emissions in their households.   On Thursday Minister Ceci announced the $3.4 billion generated from the carbon levy would be dedicated to clean energy projects through a bidding system adjudicated by the Alberta Electric System Operator. Bidding will start at the end of the year.    “By combining private sector incentives, the market guides you to where you should be investing government money,” Hastings-Simon said.   Greenpeace Canada climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema said the new tranche of funds could definitely help jumpstart the province’s renewable energy sector.   “Alberta is finally going to take advantage of the tremendous renewable energy potential that it has,” he said.   He added the government should ensure money is also available to community-based projects. Structural change, to address the way energy is owned in the province, should also part of this new system, he said.   “We need to see a prioritization on municipal, farmer association and First Nation ownership so that the benefits are flowing into our communities rather than out of them,” Hudema said.   The government did set aside $195 million specifically for First Nations’ energy transition, but there has been no indication of how that money will role out.   Jesse Cardinal of Keepers of the Athabasca said she hopes that however those funds are delivered, the process be done in consultation with First Nations.   “Consultation is making a plan together, so I would hope that’s how Alberta is going to go with that $195 million,” Cardinal said. “Different First Nations have different ideas of how they want to move away from coal.”   Cardinal was instrumental in establishing a solar program the Fort Chipewyan First Nation now operates. In 2014, securing funding for the $14,000 project was not easy, she said.   Now two more First Nations, the Beaver Lake Cree First Nation and Fort McMurray First Nation, are looking to implement their own solar projects.   The government’s current funding outline includes specific solar project targets and Cardinal hopes the road will be easier for First Nations going forward.   “That’s the next step we need to take is to ensure dollars are available for everybody,” she said. “This is one step of many steps, the beginning of a long road ahead of how we need to change.”

Image: Premier Rachel Notley and Finance Minister Joe Ceci host a pre-budget town hall in Fort McMurray, the home of the Alberta oilsands. Province of Alberta/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 speech Alberta Premier Rachel Notley gave to over 1,000 federal NDP delegates on Saturday in Edmonton’s Shaw Convention Centre was a stunning thing to behold.

In a mere half-hour, she received around a dozen standing ovations, cracked a pretty solid joke about Donald Trump and delivered a unabashed appeal for the approval and construction of pipelines “that are built by Canadians, using Canadian steel.”

But even more stunning was the fact that she completely failed to mention the rights or interests of First Nations, Métis and Inuit people.

Oil and Gas Industry Currently Critical to Alberta Economy

The Alberta government clearly has a reason for wanting to facilitate the export of more oil and gas via the proposed TransCanada Energy East and Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain pipelines.

In 2014, energy products accounted for one-quarter of the province’s GDP and three-quarters of its exports. The global oil price has since plummeted by two-thirds, resulting in a projected provincial deficit of over $10 billion.

Notley emphasized in her speech that “hundreds of thousands of Canadians work in resource industries — here and across Canada” and “we need to be able to get the best possible world price for the oil we produce here” via “pipelines to tidewater that allows us to diversify our markets and upgrade our products.”

Alberta NDP Pledged to Implement UNDRIP, “Ensure Respectful Consultation”

Those are very nice ideas, supported by many political pundits and Alberta NDP supporters.

But unfortunately for such boosters, the NDP committed in its election platform to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and to “work with Alberta Indigenous Peoples to build a relationship of trust and ensure respectful consultation.”

Article 32 of the declaration states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories.”

And free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) underpins much of the document, requiring that Indigenous peoples are consulted with in a way that ensures a process free of manipulation, conducted well in advance and with plenty of information provided.

Eriel Deranger, communications manager of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) suggests the NDP’s push for the development of pipelines and oil and gas resources simply doesn’t respect the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

“Where’s the consent?” asks Deranger. “If communities want to say ‘no,’ then we’re talking about a government that’s willing to respect communities’ right to say ‘no’ and to uphold that right,” she says.

Many First Nations Oppose Energy East and Trans Mountain Expansion

Many First Nations and other Indigenous groups have voiced opposition to Energy East and the Trans Mountain expansion (the two projects considered most likely to be approved and constructed).

The Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam nations and Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs are explicitly opposed to Trans Mountain, while the entire Iroquois caucus, Wolastoq Grand Council and Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have united in resistance to Energy East.

A letter sent by Mohawk Kanesatake Grand Chief Serge Simon to Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard in early March stated: “The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake as well as the rest of the Iroquois caucus has made its choice. Other First Nations are making the same choice.”

Mike Hudema, climate energy campaigner at Greenpeace Canada, says: “Not only have First Nations not given their consent but they have said very strongly that they don’t want these pipelines going through their traditional territory.”

Federal Government Positioning to Implement Pipeline Strategy

On Monday, the National Post’s John Ivison reported (while vaguely citing “people with knowledge of the matter”) that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has instructed cabinet ministers to prepare a pipeline strategy to “make Energy East and Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality.”

The federal government has also pledged to implement UNDRIP, as well as all 94 calls to action contained in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The TRC also emphasizes the concept of free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples “before proceeding with economic development projects” and the requirement of “recognition and integration of Indigenous laws and legal traditions in negotiation and implementation processes involving Treaties, land claims, and other constructive agreements.”

Many First Nations Desire Co-management of Resource Development

Deranger emphasizes that First Nations communities are not anti-development: “There’s this really, really antiquated notion that if you give First Nations the right to say ‘no’ we’re going to end up back in teepees and sending smoke signals or something really ridiculous,” she jokes.

Rather, she says First Nations are asking for co-management of resource development, something that has been done in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Northern Quebec and Manitoba (ACFN has been petitioning for a similar arrangement for 20 years).

“Co-management is not asking for everything,” she says. “It’s asking to be partners. Our ancestors signed our treaty agreements believing that we were signing nation-to-nation agreements, to be given equal say in the development of our lands and territories.”

There has been no public indication that such conversations are on the radar of the provincial or federal government.

Alberta’s Push for Pipelines “Flies in the Face of These Commitments”

After all, truly engaging with documents like UNDRIP and the TRC would require a complete overhaul of how development is conducted, could potentially pose a threat to corporate profits and prove difficult to explain to voters.

But the Alberta NDP perhaps shouldn’t have promised to implement such policies if it just wanted to continue rapid oilsands development in Treaty 8 territory and ram pipelines through other sovereign territories without ensuring free, prior and informed consent beforehand.

“I do think the Alberta government pushing so hard for pipelines really flies in the face of these commitments,” Hudema says. “A lot of First Nations communities are looking to see how the government deals with this situation to know how serious the government really is to its commitments to First Nations people.”

Image: Premier Rachel Notley holds a sign in support of the Energy East pipeline. Photo: Premier of Alberta/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 days of infinite growth in Alberta’s oilsands are over with the Alberta government’s blockbuster climate change announcement on Sunday, which attracted broad support from industry and civil society.

“This is the day that we start to mobilize capital and resources to create green jobs, green energy, green infrastructure and a strong, environmentally responsible, sustainable and visionary Alberta energy industry with a great future,” Premier Rachel Notley said. “This is the day we stop denying there is an issue, and this is the day we do our part.”

Notley and Environment & Parks Minister Shannon Phillips released a 97-page climate change policy plan, which includes five key pillars.

1) Carbon will be priced economy-wide at $30/tonne by 2018.

2) Coal-fired power plants will be phased out by 2030.

3) Oilsands emissions will be capped at 100 megatonnes (Mt) per year (recent Environment Canada figures predicted a 2020 output of 103 Mt from the sector), which amounts to allowing current construction to go ahead, but that’s it. That means to expand production beyond current projects, per barrel emissions will need to be reduced.

4) Methane emissions from oil and gas operations will be cut by 45 per cent in 2025.

5) 30 per cent of all electricity will be generated by renewables by 2030.

It is a staggeringly significant proposal, one that far surpasses anything the former Progressive Conservative government imagined in the course of its 43-year reign. The announcement — delivered at Edmonton’s Telus World of Science — was benefitted by appearances from CEOs of Suncor, Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. (CNRL), Shell and Cenovus, something far-right activist Ezra Levant dismissed by alleging the massive energy companies “don't represent the industry.”

Environmental groups such as the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada were also on stage. Getting all of those players in support of one climate strategy is a huge testament to the leadership of University of Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach, who chaired the climate change panel.

Climate Change Policy Plan Garners Broad Support

With the exception of the rabidly conservative Wildrose Party and former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, it seemed every serious player in politics and industry celebrated the announcement. The NDP-affiliated Broadbent Institute, headquartered in Toronto, concluded: “On a public policy Richter scale, Alberta’s new Climate Leadership Plan is an 11.”

Shell Canada announced that “these measures provide predictability and certainty and will help ensure that producers can responsibly develop and grow this significant Canadian resource while also addressing global concerns about climate change.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau congratulated Notley in a tweet now favourited over 1,300 times as “a very positive step in the fight against climate change.”  Political blogger Dave Cournoyer accurately dubbed it a “pigs fly” situation.

All of this means a whole lot given the impending Paris Climate Change Conference (COP 21).

Canada ranks 15th out of 17th countries for greenhouse gas emissions according to the Conference Board of Canada, with Alberta contributing 36 per cent of national emissions in 2013 despite only accounting for 11 per cent of the country’s population.

The expected spike in oilsands expansion was widely expected to nullify all other sources of emissions reductions in the Canada. The fact that Alberta, and by extension Canada, is now going into COP 21 with a detailed plan to address the province’s largest source of emissions – oilsands development and coal-fired power plants – speaks volumes about the desire to be taken seriously on the world stage.

Climate Plan May Increase Social Licence for Oilsands Operations

Another component that ostensibly drove oil execs to hop on the green bandwagon was the need to accrue “social licence,” or the support required to build pipelines to export its products. The veto of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline represents what happens when such social licence isn’t secured.

By addressing runaway emissions, Alberta-based companies might actually stand a chance to build infrastructure like the Energy East pipeline, which would transport 1.1 million barrels of diluted bitumen from Alberta to Quebec and New Brunswick every day.

“The province’s climate strategy may allow our sector to invest more aggressively in technologies to further reduce per barrel emissions in our sector and do our part to tackle climate change,” said Tim McMillan, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ president and chief executive officer, in a statement.

“We encourage the province to follow a balanced approach, recognizing that our sector can only become a global supplier of responsibly produced oil and natural gas if we are competitive on the world stage.”

The fight over pipelines is unlikely to dissipate. While Sunday’s announcement was a giant step in the right direction, it’s still not enough to avoid catastrophic global warming, according to a statement from Greenpeace.

“These policies are important first steps, but much bigger emission reductions will be needed for Alberta to do its part to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius,” Alberta climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema said.

Hudema also noted that the province still has no short or long-term emission reduction targets.

“Targets give an important signal to business, let the world know where Alberta is headed, and help ensure that direction leads to the reductions that science and equity demand,” he said.

The Pembina Institute has historically supported a higher carbon tax than what was proposed on Sunday – with $40/tonne in 2016, $50/tonne in 2017 and $60/tonne in 2018 — but the plan is an indisputably major upgrade from the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), which taxed Alberta’s largest emitters (103 at last count) at the equivalent of $1.80/tonne.

George Hoberg, professor in the forest department at the University of British Columbia, notes there’s still plenty of work to be done but that: “Today is a day for celebration. Alberta has bent its carbon emissions curve, and provided a lever to Canada to show real climate leadership.”

Ultimately, the future of Canada’s environmental reputation may rely on the work that Trudeau and Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna complete during and after the Paris conference. But Sunday’s announcement out of Alberta sets quite the standard.

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.

While the Keystone XL, Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain and Energy East pipelines remain stalled in political upheaval, environmental opposition and regulatory processing, the government of Alberta could start moving landlocked oil to tidal waters via the Arctic as early as 2015, according to a technical report recently released by the Alberta government. 

The report, authored by Canatec Associates International Ltd., an Arctic petroleum consultation firm, considers three scenarios for exporting oilsands product, all of which were deemed technically feasible. An early, exploratory shipment of oil to the Arctic could be on the move as early as next year, the report states.

The Arctic Gateway Pipeline, previously considered logistically unfeasible, has been eyed with increasing interest recently, as a warming climate begins to open up the north to new development and previously inaccessible shipment routes.

The report notes the new export route stands to benefit from a combination of a changing northern climate, hunger for resource development in Yellowknife and the Northwest Territories, and the growing desperation to move Alberta oil to Asian markets.

The Financial Post reports “an aggressive push from the federal government to reduce environmental oversight in the territory” is part of the “combination of winning conditions” adding to the proposal’s viability.

The report states Alberta “could take a leadership role within Canadian confederation, on the future of the Arctic.”

“Alberta will automatically be a major player in this industry if it has already established an Arctic Energy Gateway.”

The Canatec report notes the Arctic “lacks the equipment, personnel and logistical capacity to effectively respond to oil spills,” adding, “no oil spill response organizations are certified to work in the Arctic.”

Proposed route to the Arctic. Image from Canatec.

The pipeline is projected to transport up to 100,000 barrels of diluted bitumen a day. The Keystone XL pipeline would carry up to 700,000 barrles of oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast and the federally-approved Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline would have a daily capacity of 525,000 barrels of oil.

Alberta Energy spokesperson Ryan Cromb told Fort McMurray Today the report was commissioned to survey oil-export options, and not to identify an alternative to existing pipelines.

“This report was commissioned as part of our larger look at market access in all directions – east, west, north and south,” he said. “Alberta Energy is continuing to review the report and will use it to help better inform us and more fully understand market options.”

Mike Hudema from Greenpeace Canada told Fort McMurray Today it is “absolutely ridiculous” Alberta is considering an Arctic route for oil export.

“Not only should we not be expanding the oilsands at a point where we are blowing past so many environmental thresholds, but now we want to endanger one of the last remaining untouched ecosystems?” he said.

Keith Stewart, energy and climate campaigner for Greenpeace, echoed these concerns: “The melting of the arctic should be setting off alarms saying we should start moving away from fossil fuels,” he said. “Instead, we are using it as an opportunity to make things worse.”

New economic attention has been paid to Arctic shipping routes since ice levels dropped to record lows in the summer of 2012. Unprecedented ice retreat in August 2012 opened up Parry Channel in the Northwest Passage, signaling a new life to the historic shipping route that, until then, was thought too dangerous to be economic.

Ice in the Perry Channel July 17, 2012. Image by NASA.

Ice retreat in Perry Channel on August 3, 2012. Image by NASA.

In 2013 a container ship used the Northwest Passage to deliver cargo to the port in Rotterdam.

Canatec currently lists the Northwest Passage as “technically feasible to open.”

Image Credit: Tuktoyaktuk by pony_coach 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.

For five long years the federal government and the oil industry have lobbied against the European Union labeling oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen as ‘dirty oil’ in its Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). A new report released yesterday reveals the recent involvement of the U.S. in the lobby offensive to keep the EU market open for bitumen exports has tipped the scales in favour of oilsands proponents.

“The sustained attacks by the U.S. and Canada on the European Union’s key legislation on transport fuel emissions seem to be paying off,” Fabian Flues of Friends of the Earth Europe, the author of the report, admits.

The report shows the EU Fuel Quality Directive, a piece of legislation designed to reduce global warming greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU’s transportation sector, is unlikely to acknowledge fuels from different sources of oil – conventional oil, oilsands, oil shale – have different carbon footprints. Instead all oils will more than likely be treated as having the same GHG emissions intensity 'value' in the Directive. This is exactly what Canada, the oil industy and now the U.S. have been pushing for.

“Europe is again failing to stand up effectively for its own climate policy,” Flues says.

Trade talks, not science, weakening the Fuel Quality Directive

The EU has not fallen for the federal government’s argument that bitumen produces only marginally more GHG emissions than conventional oil in extraction, processing, and use. A European Commission study found bitumen’s carbon footprint is between 12 – 40 per cent higher than conventional oil.

The report reveals trade, not science, is the cause of the EU backing off from implementing the Fuel Quality Directive as it was originally meant to be implemented. To reduce GHG emissions from transportation the Directive discourages transport fuel suppliers from selling fuels with high carbon footprints in the EU. Identifying which fuels have higher carbon footprints was meant to make things easier for fuel suppliers to reduce the GHG emissions output of their product.

“The delay and weakening of the European Fuel Quality Directive once again reveals that agreements like CETA (the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement) are less about trade and more about limiting the ability of governments to effectively regulate in the public interest,” Scott Harris, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, says.

Fuel Quality Directive subject of CETA talks

The report argues the U.S. and Canada are using their own ongoing trade negotiations with the EU to undermine the Fuel Quality Directive. Canada and the EU have consistently maintained their trade negotiations for the CETA and the Directive are two separate issues. The evidence indicates otherwise:

“The foreign policy think tank The Polish Insti­tute for International Affairs reported that the FQD had been raised in the CETA negotiations and there have been calls in Canada to suspend the negotiations until the high GHG value for tar sands has been resolved to Canadian satisfac­tion,” the report states.

“While other governments are trying to make communities safer, the Canadian government is using its political muscle to push things in the opposite direction so it can export high carbon tar sands oil as quickly as possible,” Mike Hudema, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, says.

“It’s astonishing that as we watch the fires spread in the Northwest Territories and the flood waters rise in the Prairies our government still isn’t getting the message – climate change is real and we need action immediately,” Hudema states.

The Globe and Mail reported as earlier as 2011 that anonymous sources had said Canada had threatened “to void the free trade deal” if the Fuel Quality Directive was implemented.

“Even before it is signed, CETA is being used to water down much-needed public policy. Imagine what will happen to regulations on both sides of the Atlantic if the deal is actually implemented,” Harris of the Council of Canadians says.

U.S. joins the lobby offensive

The U.S. in some ways has been more open about its lobbying against the Fuel Quality Directive. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman confirmed he “raised these issues [of the FQD implementation] with senior Commission officials on several occasions, including in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIP).” The TTIP is the trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU currently under negotiation.

European Commission documents obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe reveal the U.S. trade missions has “substantive concerns” with the Fuel Quality Directive singling out fuels produced from bitumen as having a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil. Like Canada and the oil industry, the U.S. wants all oil – regardless of GHG emissions – to be treated the same as conventional oil in the Directive.

It appears this new pressure from the U.S. is the straw breaking the camel’s back:

“[Media] reports claim that the system chosen by the Commission is one of averaging of all crudes – exactly what the U.S. mission had requested in its e-mail. If they are correct, the new FQD proposal will be considerably less effective in discouraging the import of highly climate damaging oil, such as tar sands. It might well be the case that the FQD is the first environmental casualty of the TTIP negotiations,” the report states.

Recently eleven members of U.S. Congress sent a letter to the US trade mission expressing their concerns “that official U.S. trade negotiations could undercut the EU’s commendable efforts to reduce carbon pollution.” 

Image Credit: OpenEuropeBlog

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.

Families forced to evacuate their homes in Peace River, Alberta due to toxic fumes from bitumen development have finally received official recognition of their plight.

This week an Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) panel released a report confirming the odours released from a Baytex Energy Corp. oilsands processing facility may have been the cause of health complications, including chronic coughing, disorientation, nose and throat irritation, fatigue, weight loss, gray skin, and the formation of growths, that forced the families from their properties.

Oilsands deposits in the Peace River region are extracted using a relatively new method called Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand or CHOPS. The process involves pumping heavy oil from the ground to heated surface-level tanks that produce emissions plumes.

“The Panel’s main finding in this section is that odours from heavy oil operations in the Peace River area have the potential to cause some of the symptoms experienced by residents; therefore, these odours should be eliminated,” the report states.

The panel also noted a lack of clear communication concerning air monitoring to local community members.

Residents of the Peace River area have raised concerns regarding the fumes for nearly three decades but became more suspicious of the link to health complications in recent years and most notably after Baytex drilled new wells in 2011. The Alberta government does not monitor the Peace River region's air for anything but sour gas and sulphur dioxide and has previously claimed there is no scientific evidence to connect the Baytex emissions to the community’s symptoms.

In March of 2013 Alberta Energy Minister Ken Hughes visited the region and subsequently turned down Baytex’s application to add new drill sites.

“What I could detect was that there was something in the air that was different than the rest of Alberta,” Hughes said. “This kind of development was experiencing different emissions, and different air quality problems.”

As outlined in the recent AER report, Baytex now has four months to install pollution-control devices on its tanks. The report also calls for further studies into the connection between oil emissions and negative health impacts and recommends Alberta Health “ensure[s] that appropriate avenues exist to link local physicians with specialists in environmental health.”

During a recent AER public hearing in the area medical doctors admitted they hesitated to voice their suspicions about the fumes because of the potential consequences of appearing critical of industry. Some doctors refused to provide care for residents claiming their medical problems were directly related to the emissions.

Resident Karla Lebrecque told the panel her doctor called a local politician before agreeing to perform a blood test.

In an open letter to Baytex Energy Labrecque wrote “I am not a tree hugger, environmental activist or anti-oil activist. Quite the opposite; I fully appreciate the prosperity that our region has experienced thanks in no small part to Alberta’s thriving oil and gas industry.”

She added, “while I believe that Alberta is rightfully an energy superpower, I’m also a mother tired of my family being poisoned by Baytex Energy’s emissions and the Alberta Government allowing them to do so. I also believe it is possible for Baytex Energy to extract oil from the ground responsibly while simultaneously growing their company and that the same time protecting the health of those that live near and around their sites.”

Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema says what’s happening in the Peace River region highlights the uncertainties surrounding the extraction and processing of bitumen.

The “troubling thing the report showed was that the government has a huge information gap when it comes to the impacts of tar sands development. The report shows that tar sands impacts will be different given differences in things like geology and wind patterns and regulations should, but don’t, currently reflect that. It also shows that, once again, Alberta’s monitoring system is inadequate,” he wrote.

Image Credit: StopBaytex.ca

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 province of Alberta has recently released a development plan for public schools that enlists Suncor Energy and Syncrude Canada in the creation of future Kindergarten to grade three curriculum. Oil giant Cenovus will partner in developing curriculum for grades four to 12.

The oil and gas industry’s involvement in the province’s educational development is creating concern among opposition parties and environmental organizations.

NDP Education Critic Deron Bilous called granting partnership status to industry “appalling.”

“Kindergarten to grade three is a very formative time in a child’s education where their minds are still developing. It is outrageous and appalling to have oil and gas companies involved in any way in developing curriculum for Alberta’s youngest students,” he said.

Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema said “it’s definitely very disturbing that the Alberta government would see oil giants Syncrude and Suncor as key partners in designing Alberta’s K to three curriculum. Big oil doesn’t belong in Alberta’s schools.”

He added, “It’s time that the Alberta government realizes that what’s good for the oil industry isn’t what’s good for the rest of Alberta and especially not our children. While oil may run our cars for now it shouldn’t run our government or our schools. Ever.”

A page from the Alberta Government’s Curriculum Redesign document. Click the image to see the whole presentation.

Canada’s oil and gas industry has taken a notable interest in curriculum design and the general project of ‘energy literacy’ in recent years.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the country’s largest oil and gas lobby body, caused uproar last year when it partnered with the Royal Canadian Geographic Society in the creation of ‘Energy IQ,’ described as “an energy education resource for all Canadians…to engage Canadian teachers and students through curriculum-linked in-class learning tools, and to increase energy knowledge among the general public and community leaders.”

The province of Alberta has recently released a development plan for public schools that enlists Suncor Energy and Syncrude Canada in the creation of future Kindergarten to grade three curriculum. Oil giant Cenovus will partner in developing curriculum for grades four to 12.

The oil and gas industry’s involvement in the province’s educational development is creating concern among opposition parties and environmental organizations.

NDP Education Critic Deron Bilous called granting partnership status to industry “appalling.”

“Kindergarten to grade three is a very formative time in a child’s education where their minds are still developing. It is outrageous and appalling to have oil and gas companies involved in any way in developing curriculum for Alberta’s youngest students,” he said.

Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema said “it’s definitely very disturbing that the Alberta government would see oil giants Syncrude and Suncor as key partners in designing Alberta’s K to three curriculum. Big oil doesn’t belong in Alberta’s schools.

He added, “It’s time that the Alberta government realizes that what’s good for the oil industry isn’t what’s good for the rest of Alberta and especially not our children. While oil may run our cars for now it shouldn’t run our government or our schools. Ever.”

Cameron Fenton, national director for the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition, wrote the partnership was “dangerous” and granted CAPP access to not only young and impressionable minds, but to the credibility of a trusted educational institution like the Royal Canadian Geographic Society.

“What’s potentially more concerning is the role that Canadian Geographic is playing. As a respected educational resource and publisher, their reputation is providing political cover for CAPP to present a dangerous and disturbing narrative and vision of the future of energy and climate change in Canada. Were CAPP to be taking this project forward on their own they would be the subject of great scrutiny by teachers, students and the public, something they probably hoped to avoid by using Canadian Geographic to take their industry spin into classrooms from grade 3 on up.”

Fenton suggests Canadians should keep in mind CAPP’s “dubious distinction of being Canada’s most vocal proponent of tar sands, fracking and other fossil fuel development.” He adds the industry lobby group is the largest in the country and has been a key player in Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, eliminating environmental laws, and undermining climate legislation. They are also a big spender when it comes to oilsands advertising.

Energy IQ only tells a portion of Canada’s energy story, says Fenton, and ignores crucial parts of the conversation, like the calls from reputable energy and insurance agencies to leave 80 per cent of fossil fuel reserves in the ground.

The industry-sponsored curriculum caught its own wave of backlash from students in Vancouver who gathered more than 600 hundred signatures in protest of the materials.

“Propaganda has no place in our schools,” their open letter to Canadian Geographic read. “The content of your program appears to be highly focused on the oil and gas industry, yet it is presented as something that deals with all possible types of energy.”

They continued, “we demand that our education system continues to maintain a progressive perspective when discussing energy-related issues. As such, we, the undersigned, ask that the Energy IQ Program is not used at our school.”

CAPP has led Energy in Action programs in Alberta since 2004 to teach children about the petroleum industry and its role in environmental stewardship. In 2011 Alberta awarded CAPP the Friends of Education Award for the program. More than 59 oil and gas companies have participated in the outreach program which has run through more than 80 schools across Canada.

Image Credit: Government of Alberta via Flickr

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

A Canadian National (CN) tanker train carrying liquefied petroleum gas and crude oil derailed early Saturday in the community of Gainford, Alberta, about 80 km from Edmonton. The derailment caused a massive explosion and started a fire, prompting the evacuation of about 100 people from the community.

CBC News reports that "13 cars — four carrying petroleum crude oil and nine pressurized containers carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) — left the tracks along Highway 16 and Range Road 61" at around 1 am Saturday, according to the Transportation Safety Board.

Parkland County spokesman Carson Mills said that there was a "significant explosion" at the time of the derailment, followed by a "smaller one." No injuries have been reported.

CN spokesman Louis-Antoine Paquin said three of the tanker cars, all containing liquid petroleum gas, were on fire and leaking, reports the Guardian. The community, and all residences within 1.6 km of the derailment, were evacuated in case of another explosion.

"It's still a risky situation so we need to contain as much as possible and keep people far away," said Mills. Parkland County has declared a state of emergency for the area surrounding Gainford. Residents have been told to keep out of the evacuation zone until further notice.

Jim Phelan, Parkland County fire chief, said they were "better off to allow [the fire] to vent and burn," adding that it was "unsafe to start fire-suppression activities," reports the Calgary Herald. Phelan told the news conference that residents saw a "large fireball" at the time of the derailment, and said that the cause of the explosion is "yet to be determined."

CBC reports that "55 Evansburg RCMP officers and emergency personnel are on hand and are working with CN and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to manage the situation," as well as fire crews from Parkland County and Yellowhead County, and a HAZMAT team from Edmonton.

Alberta Environment spokeswoman Robyn Cochrane said it was too early to assess the damage done by the derailment. "We just won't know the extent, from an environmental point of view, until it's all said and done," Cochrane said. "We'll work with the company on containment and then also remediation."  

Parkland County Mayor Rod Shaigec said that "this could have been worse, given the recent incident in Lac-Mégantic — that certainly does illustrate the threats to residents living along rail tracks. So we're thankful it wasn't of that magnitude."

The July 6 derailment of a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Company tanker train carrying crude oil in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, caused 47 deaths, with about 5.5 million litres of oil burned or contaminating the environment. The tragic incident has put the increasing transport of crude by rail in North America under close scrutiny.

On October 16, just three days before the Gainford derailment, another CN train carrying fertilizer derailed near Sexsmith, Alberta, causing an evacuation of the town.

Greenpeace has spoken out against the Harper government for putting the needs of the oil industry over the safety of Canadians.

"This kind of disaster will become the new normal unless the federal government takes much more effective measures to improve oil transportation safety," said Greenpeace spokesman Mike Hudema.

"The truth is that the Harper government has become such a cheerleader for the petroleum industry that it is failing in its duty to protect our communities and the environment," said Hudema. "This is the third major derailment in Alberta in the last few months. How many more will it take before Ottawa implements transportation safety regulations that were recommended more than a decade ago?"

Documents obtained by Greenpeace recently revealed that CN and Natural Resources Canada were considering a plan last March to move oil by rail from Alberta to BC for export to overseas markets, in capacities matching that proposed for the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The train that derailed in Gainford was travelling from Edmonton to Vancouver, BC, said CN spokesman Paquin.

Whether the Harper government continues to push for the transport of oil by rail despite the numerous safety concerns and growing number of derailments remains to be seen.

Image Credit: Parkland County / 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.

Provincial auditor general Merwan Saher has agreed to conduct an audit of oil pipeline safety in Alberta, responding to requests from a coalition of 54 public interest groups dissatisfied with the provincial government's third-party report released in August.

"We will be auditing the government's monitoring systems to ensure compliance with Alberta's pipeline regulations. Our audit would include inspection and enforcement processes," Saher wrote in a letter to Alberta's Opposition parties Wildrose and the NDP, which were among the groups demanding the review.

The government-commissioned pipeline safety review, conducted by Group 10 Engineering, was announced by Energy Minister Ken Hughes in July 2012 after several major pipeline oil spills in the province, including a 475,000 litre leak from a Plains Midstream Canada pipeline in Central Alberta in June. The final report was made public a year later, in August 2013.

Following the release of the report last month, a coalition representing 54 environmental, First Nations, labour and landowner groups wrote to Premier Alison Redford requesting another review. The letter stated that "Albertans deserve to know the real scope of the province's pipeline problems and they deserve real solutions," leaving the group "no choice but to begin to petition the Alberta auditor general to take on such an examination."  

Eriel Deranger, Communications Coordinator for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation said “Oil spills pose a major threat to our community, which depends on clean air, water and soil to sustain our way of life. We are pleased that the Auditor General will be looking into pipeline safety, as we feel the provincial government hasn’t been doing enough to prevent spills from happening.”

“It’s been a long road pushing for this review but hopefully the Auditor General will finally give Albertan’s some answers to Alberta’s pipeline woes because the Redford government definitely hasn’t,” said Mike Hudema, Greenpeace Canada’s climate and energy campaigner. “Groups from across the political spectrum joined together to push for this review because of the growing threats pipeline spills are posing to Alberta’s communities and environment. I hope this review will give the government time to pause on its pipeline-pushing ways because all is not well in Alberta.”

Jennifer Grant, director of the oilsands program at the Pembina Institute, applauded Saher for "showing leadership on this important issue," saying that the "audit presents an opportunity to restore Albertans' confidence in the provincial regulator's ability to manage pipelines and the associated risks."

"With 400,000 square kilometres of pipelines crisscrossing the province, and an average of two crude oil spills a day for the past 37 years, ensuring the integrity and safety of Alberta's pipeline network is absolutely critical and could set an important precedent for other jurisdictions," Grant said in a news release.

Global News reports that the auditor general "has been considering a pipeline safety audit for much of the past year" according to spokeswoman Kim Nishikaze. Nishikaze added that they "will be looking at pipeline safety in the foreseeable future" but "can't say when."

Saher wrote in his letter that the pipeline safety audit would be undertaken "as soon as reasonably possible."

Image Credit: 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.

Few details are available eleven days after a leak of “produced water” from a pipeline approximately 150 kilometers northwest of High Level Alberta.

Oil and gas exploration and production company Apache Corp. discovered the leak in their pipeline about 20 km north of Zama City during an airplane flyover and reported it to Alberta Environment on June 1st.

An updated press release from the company says that the water was spilled after the oil and gas had been removed. “The cause and volume of the spill remain under investigation.”

Greenpeace Canada Climate and Energy Campaigner Mike Hudema sees this delay in releasing detailed information as unacceptable. He points out that if it was spotted by airplane, the spill must be quite large, but says that representatives from Alberta Environment refuse even to estimate the size of the affected area. They also haven’t released photos.

“We’re eleven days after this event ended, apparently, and we still have no information from the province,” he says. “We don’t know how big the spill was. We don’t know how large the area was. We don’t know what chemicals were in the pipe. We don’t know how long the spill lasted. These are all details that should be easy to ascertain fairly quickly, and they’re still answers that the provincial government simply doesn’t know or won’t release.”

Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development spokesperson Jessica Potter says that although the agency has staff on the scene, the delay in the release of information is due to on-going assessments.

“The company did initiate protective actions such as blocking culvert drainage to restrict further movement of the affected water,” she says. “There’s ongoing monitoring of wetlands and water monitoring near the break.”

Oil and gas leaks have become commonplace occurrences amongst Alberta’s vast network on oil and gas pipelines. Last year Global News reported “28,666 crude oil spills in total, plus another 31,453 spills of just about any other substance you can think of putting in a pipeline—from salt water to liquid petroleum.”

The Zama City leak is not far from Rainbow Lake, which suffered a spill of 22,000 barrels of oil in May 2012.

In June 2012 a spill of more than 3000 of barrels of crude oil from a Plains Midstream pipeline sent residents near Red Deer, Alberta running from toxic fumes. The spill triggered a government safety report. Although it was completed in December, the public has yet to see the technical details, making promise of a public consultation process seem unlikely.

Earlier this year, a Suncor leak plant dumped 350,000 litres of wastewater into the Athabasca River over ten hours. At the time, a group including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Council of Canadians, First Nations, and Forest Ethics Advocacy sent a letter to Alberta Environment Minister Diana McQueen demanding an immediate release of information about the leak, including photos. 

This most recent spill's location makes independent observations difficult to carry out, but that doesn’t mitigate the environmental consequences. Though sparsely populated, the area surrounding Zama City is a marshy wetland that is a key habitat to many species of waterfowl. It also houses a number of wild bison.

Hudema connects the government’s lack of transparency in these situations to an ongoing “culture of silence” on the part of the province of Alberta when it comes to environmental issues.

“People deserve quick and truthful answers,” he says. “Who is the energy regulator trying to protect? Is the energy regulator trying to protect these companies? Or is the energy regulator trying to protect the communities and the environment?”

He questions whether their silence may relate to the ongoing debate about the Keystone XL pipeline, which has drawn international attention to the province’s oil and gas industry. “Is the public not getting the answers it deserves because the government is more interested in public relations than protecting the public and 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.

The Canadian government is working hard behind the scenes to cover up the negative effects that tar sands extraction is having on the local environment, wildlife, communities and the global climate. According to Access to Information documents obtained by Postmedia's Mike De Souza, the Stephen Harper government has actively suppressed the release of vital information regarding the spread of tar sands contamination by muzzling federal scientists.

The gag order, according to De Souza, came on the heels of a newly researched government report in November 2011 which confirmed the findings of University of Alberta scientists Erin N. Kelly and David Schindler. The scientists discovered concentrations of toxics such as heavy metals were higher near tar sands operations, showing a positive correlation between tar sands activity and the spread of contaminants in the local environment.

The government of Canada and the government of Alberta denied the correlation, saying local waterways tested showed no signs of toxic contamination and reports of mutated and cancerous fish downstream from the tar sands were unfounded.

The document uncovered by De Souza shows that federal scientists who could confirm the University of Alberta results were restricted from speaking to the media: "If scientists are approached for interviews at the conference, the [Environment Canada] communications policy will be followed by referring the journalist to the media relations…phone number. An appropriate spokesperson will then be identified depending on journalist questions."

Federal scientists were also given a list of scripted responses, explaining government tests in the spring of 2010 showed no toxics in the Athabasca River and established no links between contaminants and abnormal and sick fish.

Scientists were also directed to avoid questions regarding environmental monitoring of the tar sands and the role Environment Canada plays in the region with this scripted line: "I am a scientist. I'm not in a position to answer that question but I'd be happy to refer you to an appropriate spokesperson."

David Schindler, co-author of the 2010 University of Alberta study commented, "it is a good study, and [the author] is a very fine young scientist, who should be trusted to comment on her own results."

"Similarly, Derek Muir, her supervisor and co-author, is one of the world's top contamination experts, and Canadians should be ashamed that he cannot discuss results directly with the public, but must go through an official spokesperson."

In 2010, the results of Kelly and Schindler's contaminant analysis caused an uproar in Alberta and federal governments. Eager to promote expansion in the tar sands, the Canadian government failed to install a sound and independent monitoring system for the region.

Any data used to support the government's official position, that no contamination had occurred, was supplied by the oil and gas industry.

Schindler conducted a basic analysis of waterways in the region, sampling water both upstream from tar sands operations, and downstream. What Schindler and his team discovered was a considerable accumulation of pollutants in water downstream from tar sands development which includes open-pit mining and refining.

Most notably, Schindler discovered that airborne pollutants were being deposited on land, far from contaminated waterways like the Athabasca River. It was Schindler who first recognized the role snow was playing in the transportation and depositing of tar sands pollution.

These land-based pollutants mirrored contamination of waterways. Schindler found that "embryos of fish exposed to oilsands' water and sediment have very high rates of mortality, and among the survivors, there are very high rates of deformities."

His research confirmed the concerns of local communities, First Nations and environmental groups that the fast-tracking of tar sands expansion without careful monitoring was having negative effects on the environment and those living downstream.

The findings also contradicted research conducted by the industry/government group Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP), a group Schindler claims "violated every rule" of long-term study.

In perhaps one of Canada's most scandalous moments in recent history, Dr. Schindler was publicly discredited by the provincial and federal government. His research and his credibility were called into question when the Alberta government went on record to say his study – which was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – was biased and that contaminants in the region's watershed occur naturally and not as a result of industrial activities.

The treatment Schindler received as a result of his research concerned scientists across Canada, many of whom felt the federal government was conduction a 'witch hunt' to silence information that might fuel opposition to the tar sands.

Schindler's experience was just one of many reasons why scientists from across Canada held a mock memorial this summer on Parliament Hill, mourning the "Death of Evidence," caused by the muzzling of scientists by the federal government.

The motto of the event was clear: "Stephen Harper Hates Science."

To this day no clear environmental monitoring program is in place to track and analyze the effects that tar sands extraction and refining has on the local environment. Last month the Alberta government announced the creation of a new scientific body to monitor the impacts of development, which Diana McQueen, the province's Environment Minister, suggests will be 'credible' and operate at an 'arms-length' from industry and government. The plan, however, has yet to take any real shape.

"This is yet another plan to develop a plan," said Greenpeace energy and climate campaigner Mike Hudema. "There is still no funding commitment and no clear governance model to ensure independence. The province should stop approving new projects based on flawed data and incomplete information until this gets sorted out."

Image credit: Jodi Stark

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.