This is a guest post by Benjamin Thibault and Andrew Read of the Pembina Institute. 

Coal Association of Canada (CAC) president, Robin Campbell is currently touring Alberta with a series of “ACT information meetings.” He is making a number of assertions about the province’s coal industry and Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan. We feel that some of the points being raised by Campbell need to be addressed. This is the second blog post to address those claims and to reiterate the importance of Alberta’s pledge to phase out coal power pollution.   As our first fact check showed, the CAC has been disseminating some misinformation on coal’s contribution to air pollution in Alberta. Another bucket of inaccuracies centres around the long-term future of coal — both locally and internationally — and the potential for coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in particular.

The outlook for coal is not what it once was

According to an Edson Leader article reporting the kick-off of the CAC’s Alberta tour, “Campbell said the world will continue to burn coal and make steel and that's not going to stop.” He goes on to say that Alberta has “enough coal to employ four more generations of miners.”

In contrast to the flowery vision of a 21st century coal boom, the last few years have brought bad news for coal at every turn. Demand has collapsed across much of the developed world, as seen in the 45-year low for coal power production in the United States. According to the International Energy Agency, even in countries like China — oft-touted as coal’s hope for the future — “coal demand is sputtering” and renewables are “significantly curtailing coal power generation, driven not only by energy security and climate concerns but also by efforts to reduce local pollution.”

Analysts have predicted that coal consumption has peaked and the recent declines will only continue with environmental constraints and the renewed global commitment to address climate change.

Clearly, the global trends do not look kindly on the coal industry.

Clean coal myth redux 

“One of the biggest myths is that coal cannot be burned clean,” Campbell told the Leader. “We can burn it clean.” But the realities of so-called “clean coal” deeply undermine the concept, which has been championed strongly by the flagging U.S. coal industry.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS), for example, is very expensive technology used to burn some of the world’s fossil fuels for energy with much lower emissions. The process helps reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to installations that burn freely. But questions addressing how clean is “clean” and the associated costs continue to make the benefits of the technology uncertain.

CCS may play a critical role in the future in helping to decarbonize industrial processes that are GHG intensive; however, its usefulness in coal-fired electricity appears very limited. This is due to poor economic performance at a number of commercial-scale demonstration projects and the fact that low carbon alternatives for producing electricity are readily, and more economically, available.

Challenges with the deployment of CCS technology are evident from Canada’s flagship coal project, SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3 refurbishment. The project received $240 million in federal subsidies and enjoys captive ratepayers who must absorb project costs and cost overruns through their electricity bills. The project has suffered from ongoing operational challenges, which have been linked to issues with the original design.

When operations began in 2014, SaskPower representatives — and even Premier Brad Wall — touted their successes. It was some time before it was revealed that the facility started by running at only 40 per cent of capacity, so SaskPower was made to pay penalties to Cenovus for failing to provide the CO2 that the oil company was promised to help get more oil out of the ground.

Difficulties are accumulating in other attempts at applying CCS to coal as well. In Mississippi, the Kemper County power plant has seen major cost overruns, bringing the latest total to US$6.6 billion — more than double initial projections. Much of this cost overrun will fall to electricity customers. Like the CAC, the coal industry has beenpointing to plants like Kemper to demonstrate the possibilities of these technologies. But with over two years in delays and more cost overruns possible, it is unclear how this remains a useful example.

Meanwhile, in the U.K. — which Campbell points to as an example of where CCS is being applied to power generation — government cancelled its nearly $2-billion competition for CCS technology back in November, just days after the U.K. announced that it would phase out dirty coal by 2025. Despite Campbell’s comments, the U.K. is actually offering a model for a coal phase-out rather than for “clean coal.”

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

Even the coal industry appears to be conflicted on the likelihood that coal CCS will be viable anytime soon. Since 2012, Canadian coal plants have faced an obligation to reduce their emissions when they reach their 50-year useful-life limit. While they could keep operating if they deployed CCS, observers on all sides have assumed they would close instead.

Similarly, the Alberta government announced in its Climate Leadership Plan last November that there would be “no pollution from coal-fired electricity generation by 2030.” The province is allowing for “using technology to produce zero pollution.” Yet, according to Campbell’s comments, the “NDP government [is] planning to shut down all coal-fired [plants] by 2030.” Campbell may be inadvertently revealing that — like many observers and industry itself — “clean coal” technology is not on course to become economically feasible, even 15 years out. At least, not without massive government subsidy.

CCS subsidies for coal: been there, (not) done that

There is, of course, a potential solution to CCS’s costliness: public funding. “We would like the government to spend money on research and technology to reduce emissions then patent it and sell the technology worldwide,” Campbell said. “Canada can become a leader in clean burning coal technology.” 

Whatever the merits of government-owned patents for “clean coal” technology, Campbell knows very well that massive government subsidies for coal power CCS projects have not worked in Alberta.

The year after Campbell was first elected to government as a PC MLA, in 2008, the PC government committed $436 million to a group of companies to deploy CCS at TransAlta’s Keephills 3 coal facility. Called “Pioneer,” the project was promised another $343 million from the federal government. Despite more than three-quarters-of-a-billion dollars in pledges of public money — representing over half of the total estimated $1.4 billion project cost — the companies cancelled their plans for the project in 2012 because it was still not economic.

The only other plan for applying CCS to coal in Alberta — the Swan Hills in-situ coal gasification project, backed with a $285 million provincial pledge — was cancelled the following year.

Fool me once, Mr. Campbell.

Photo: Steel industry in Benxi, China, by Andreas Habich. 

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 the Alberta government responded to the U.S. State Department's final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL project by emphasizing the province's responsibility, transparency, and confidence that the pipeline is in the "national interest" of both Canada and the U.S.

In a statement, Alberta Premier Alison Redford appealed to the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Premier Redford pointed out that the FSEIS had "recognized the work we're doing to protect the environment," saying that "the approval of Keystone XL will build upon the deep relationship between our countries and enable further progress toward a stronger, cleaner and more stable North American economy."

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Robin Campbell also issued a statement, mentioning Alberta's "strong regulatory system" and "stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation."

Campbell's reminder that the natural resource sector "provides jobs and opportunities for families and communities across the country" was similar to Premier Redford's assurance that "our government is investing in families and communities," with no mention made of corporate interests.

In order to provide a more specific and sciene-based response to the FSEIS report on Keystone XL, Pembina Institute policy analyst Andrew Read provided counterpoints to several of its central claims.

1. Oilsands Emissions

The U.S. State Department's report claims that "Alberta's oil sands account for about 5 per cent of Canada's overall GHG emissions and Canada is responsible for about 2 per cent of global emissions."

Read says that "oilsands are the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada," and industry and government have been unable to curtail rising emissions in contrast to other industrial sectors. Emissions in 2011 from mining and oil and gas extraction were up 450 per cent from 1990 levels, 200 per cent from 2000 levels and 93 per cent from 2005 levels. These rising numbers are "primarily attributable to oilsands expansion and transportaion emissions" according to federal reports, says Read.

The FSEIS mentions the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, passed in 2003, as establishing mandatory annual GHG intensity reduction targets for large industrial GHG emitters. But these targets have only been around since 2007 with the passing of Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

2. Carbon Capture and Storage

The report mentions that the Alberta government has devoted $2 billion to fund "four large-scale CCS [Carbon Capture and Storage] projects," with two involving oilsands producers. The Alberta government has actually committed to spending around $1.4 billion to support the two CCS projects involving oilsands upgrading. The projects are only expected to reduce 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually, not 15.2 million tonnes, as claimed by the U.S. State Department.

For more on Alberta's failed CCS plans, read DeSmog Canada's two-part series.

3. In Situ Recovery of Bitumen

The FSEIS claims that 80 per cent of oilsands bitumen is recovered through in situ techniques using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage), which is "less disturbing to the land surface than surface mining and does not require tailings ponds."

While 80 per cent of bitumen is too deep to mine, only 50 per cent is currently produced in situ. Furthermore, the FSEIS ignores the downsides of in situ exploration and development, which disrupts ecosystems by creating "fragmentation of habitats" and "pathways for increased predation," and is also land intensive. In situ extraction techniques are also more greenhouse gas intensive than mining techniques, and increased production from those sources will ultimately lead to an increase in GHG emissions.

4. Water Withdrawals

The FSEIS reports that all approved oilsands projects can "withdraw no more than 3 per cent of the average annual flow of the Athabasca River," with 2008 withdrawals coming to 0.8 per cent of the long-term average annual flow.

Read emphasizes that these numbers are misleading because water withdrawals "are not halted when river flows reach extremely low levels that can result in damage to the Athabasca." For example, in winter periods when river flows are much lower withdrawals have been seen to reach 15 per cent of river flow. Read says that "comparing withdrawals to average flows masks the seasonal variability that is observed on the river."

The FSEIS also claims water use by oilsands operations has continued to decrease despite increased production, with many in situ operations recycling up to 90 per cent of water used. But this decrease is only on a "water use per barrel basis," with total water usage increasing due to expanded production. Furthermore, even water recycled during oilsands operations is permanently removed from the ecosystem, along with the 10 per cent additional water required.

5. Air Quality Monitoring

The FSEIS claims that long-term air quality monitoring "since 1995 shows improved or no change in CO, ozone, fine particulate matter, and SO2, and an increasing trend in NO2."

Read notes that over that 10-year period, there has been a lot of fluctuation in the ambient air concentration of these pollutants. Particularly, NO2 and SO2 have been seen to spike during certain periods. However, particulate matter "has been increasing at certain monitoring sites in the oilsands region." The Canadian government is also showing elevated levels of fine particulate matter above their own 2015 target in the "prairies and northern Ontario" region which contain the oilsands developments.

6. Tailings

The FSEIS observes that "processing 1 tonne (1.1 tons) of oilsand produces about 94 liters (25 gallons) of Tailings," to which Read responds that 1.5 barrels of tailings are produced for every barrel of bitumen mined from the oilsands.

The volume of tailings will continue to grow "more than 40 per cent from 830 million cubic metres to more than 1.2 billion cubic metres in 2030," and will continue to grow until stabilizing at 1.3 billion cubic metres around 2060, says Read.

A recent Environment Canada study found toxic chemicals from tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and the Athabasca River.

7. Land Reclamation

The FSEIS reports that "602 km2 (232 mi2) have been disturbed by oilsands mining activity of which 67 km2 (26 mi2) has been or is in the process of reclamation."

The actual area of land disturbed by oilsands development is 715 square kilometres (71,500 hectares). Out of that, "only 1.04 square kilometres (104 hectares) is certified by the government as reclaimed." The FSEIS's figure is closer to the amount of land unofficially reclaimed (65 square kilometres), but this self-reported claim remains unverified due to "a lack of regulated standards and requirements to reclaim land as further land is disturbed," says Read.

Read puts the estimated cost of reclaiming the disturbed land, based on available government and industry data, at $10-$15 billion, or approximately $220,000 to $320,000 per hectare.

8. Potential Impacts and Environmental Monitoring

The FSEIS states that "Alberta has committed to a cumulative effects approach that looks at potential impacts of all projects within a region," and requires oilsands operations to have plans to "minimize their effects on wildlife and biodiversity." The report also mentions that the Alberta government "monitors and verifies" that these plans are undertaken.

Alberta and Canada have continued to approve projects that have been shown to have "significant and irreversible" adverse environmental effects through the environmental review process. There are also concerns about the enforcement of these rules. Read points to a 2013 report that surveyed 9,000 reported incidents in the oilsands, and found that "less than one percent of likely environmental infractions drew any enforcement."

Images: Kris Krug via flickr

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

The impending closure of a key multi-stakeholder group that provides advice to Alberta and the federal government on the environmental effects of the oilsands was unexpectedly delayed by an injection of money from oil companies.

The funds come at a time when the future – and the purpose – of the organization, which involves the participation of aboriginal, industry, government and environmental groups, is increasingly uncertain. 

The Edmonton Journal reports that the 12-year-old Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA) was to be shut down on January 1, which would have resulted in layoffs, eviction from their offices, and the termination of contracts with scientists working on issues ranging from speedier land reclamation in the oilsands to the improvement of water quality.

However, oil company stakeholders provided $400,000 to keep the organization funded for a little while longer.

"It is for the first month of 2014 only," CEMA spokesman Corey Hobbs told Fort McMurray Today.

CEMA's uncertain future depends on Alberta's newly appointed Environment Minister Robin Campbell, who can resist pressure from the energy industry to have the organization shut down.

"We are optimistic that Minister Campbell will make a positive decision for the future of CEMA," said Hobbs. "There is no indication from anyone that the province does not support CEMA's research or work in the oilsands."

Managing Impacts

According to Andrew Read, Technical and Policy Analyst with the Pembina Institute, CEMA’s role is to “produce recommendations and provide management frameworks” regarding the cumulative impacts of the oilsands. The group consists of more than 50 members ranging from First Nations and Metis groups, environmental advocacy organizations and industry.

CEMA’s recommendations are based on the monitoring work of other environmental agencies.

According to Read, environmental monitoring agencies and CEMA provide complementary work: “monitoring agencies watch what’s happening in the environment and CEMA develops plans on how we can manage the resultant effects of industry to maintain environmental quality.”

The Pembina Institute withdrew from CEMA in 2008 citing numerous shortcomings with the multi-stakeholder framework, including a continued failure to adequately address environmental concerns.

CEMA has been struggling since 2012, when the Oil Sands Developers Group cut the organization's 2013 budget to $2.5 million for the first six months, down from $5 million the previous year. Then-environment minister Diana McQueen restored the group's funding and ordered a review of its future.

The province’s review, submitted in August 2013, showed industry wanted CEMA shut down. Renewed funding for the organization was refused. In September, industry members called for CEMA to be disbanded and its policy development job shifted to an industry-only group.

"We're very close to losing CEMA," said CEMA executive director Glen Semenchuck. "We've been waiting for five months for the minister to respond. Is CEMA going to survive? I don't know."

An Industry Imbalance?

Helene Walsh, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society representative to CEMA, says the cuts in industry funding are the result of an increase in non-industry stakeholder input.

“CEMA was largely industry dominated until the organization was restructured a few years ago with the four different chambers [aboriginal, environmental, industry and government] given equal voting power. Soon after that industry started reducing their funding and now they want CEMA to stop its work,” she said.

With CEMA shuttered, it would be difficult to know how non-industry groups, like First Nations, could contribute to cumulative impacts management, says Read.

“Without CEMA, there is a significant vacuum of expertise in the management of cumulative effects in Alberta that balances the needs of all of the stakeholders in the oilsands region. If it were to cease to exist, there would be a significant need for increased government and industry engagement with stakeholders to identify and address the various cumulative effects resulting from oilsands development.”

CEMA was founded in 2001 by former Premier Ralph Klein with the mandate of addressing the oil industry's environmental footprint. It is the only scientific agency that does government policy work by engaging all local stakeholders for consensus decisions.

Moving Ahead, But in the Wrong Direction

Alberta recently established the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) intended to harmonize and ensure the credibility of environmental monitoring across the province.

Read said the Pembina Institute is “watching the establishment of AEMERA carefully as it will dictate the credibility of environmental information that is reported by the agency.”

“We are concerned about the substantial powers being granted to the AEMERA board which is appointed by the government and does not require equal or fair representation of all stakeholders. Ultimately without fair and equal representation on the board, AEMERA may suffer from the same credibility issues as past agencies have,” Read said.

In the last year, CEMA released a detailed guidance document on end-pit lakes, and hopes to release a wetland reclamation policy guide and a framework to help industry and government understand Aboriginal traditional knowledge, in 2014.

With no budget for 2014, scientific projects are currently frozen.

Alberta also faces the possible closure of the Wood Buffalo Environmental Agency (WBEA), which monitors air pollution in the oilsands area and is currently running on emergency funds.

“If CEMA were strengthened and aboriginal and environmental groups were truly able to influence the development of the tar sands there would be hope for positive change and improved management that could improve the prospects for healthy water, air, land, wildlife, people and communities,” says Walsh, who also works with Keepers of the Athabasca.

“Closure of CEMA is a step in the wrong direction.”

Image Credit: Kris Krug

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.