Suncor Energy CEO Steve Williams rocked the oil industry boat Thursday when he announced a plan to leave some of the company’s oilsands reserves unrecovered during a conference call with investors.

Williams said the company is working to develop a plan with Alberta to “strand” its least economical reserves, a proposal that appears to align with the call of environmentalists to leave the high-cost and high-carbon fossil fuels in the ground to prevent catastrophic global warming.

“We are advocating in a modest way to work with government so that we can strand some of the oil in the oilsands,” Williams said, as reported by The Canadian Press.

“Our regulation is written so that we take to a very high percentage the last piece of oil out. That tends to be the most expensive both economically and environmentally. What we would like to do is leave that last piece in (the ground),” he said.

“I’m very optimistic we are making some breakthroughs with government to do that.”

The proposal is about more than leaving some oil deposits undeveloped, according to Simon Dyer, director of the Pembina Institute.

“We’re talking about Alberta moving philosophically from maximizing production to optimizing value,” Dyer told DeSmog Canada.

Having a conversation about where, when and how to leave behind the most expensive and highest polluting deposits just makes sense within the context of the Alberta climate plan, which caps total oilsands emissions at 100 megatonnes, and the Paris Agreement, he said.

“We have 166 billion barrels of oil in the oilsands. In 40 years we’ve extracted six per cent of them. It’s inconceivable to think we’ll extract all of them even though our regulations are written in a way that we don’t leave a barrel behind.”

Dyer said Williams is seeking a change in those regulations.

“It’s the first timid steps towards a ‘leave it in the ground’ conversation,” he said.

Suncor holds approximately 8.7 billion barrels of oil in the oilsands, including open pit mines and in situ operations. Focusing on its most profitable projects could save the company 10 to 20 per cent in operating costs, Williams said.

Keith Stewart, head of Greenpeace Canada’s climate and energy campaign, said Williams surprised a lot of people with his request but added it’s unclear at this stage how Alberta will manage Suncor’s request.

“It's important to recognize that what [Williams] really wants to do is 'high-grade' his existing reserves: exploit only the cheapest and most profitable parts,” Stewart said.

There may be some hesitation on the part of Alberta, which relies on oil royalties, to simply allow companies to back out of oil extraction agreements, he said. Extraction agreements are managed under Directive 82, something Alberta may have to alter to accommodate Suncor’s request.

Suncor Opens Conversation about ‘Stranded Assets’ in #Alberta’s #Oilsands https://t.co/Ne04sUzuFB #cdnpoli #ableg

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 2, 2016

“Lease agreements often establish rules that limit 'high-grading' and Suncor is clearly trying to get those rules changed,” Stewart said, adding this would likely help companies shut-in low-performance in situ operations.

Stewart said it makes sense in an increasingly carbon-constrained world for fossil fuel companies to want to back out of their least profitable leases and added it’s interesting in this case that Williams chose to adopt the language of environmentalists to justify doing so.

“He could have said this in corporate-speak that would be meaningless to most, but instead he used a term that — until recently — was only used by the environmental movement. The asset is stranded, or worthless, because the oil has to stay in the ground to avoid dangerous levels of warming and that isn’t something most oil executives want to talk about.”

While high-grading assets isn’t necessarily a bad thing from an environmental perspective, the act of stranding assets needs to be considered in a global context, Stewart said.

“Williams called for a ‘modest’ stranding of assets, whereas climate science tells us we need to strand around 80 per cent of fossil fuel reserves. So we’re still far apart on how much ‘stranding’ is called for. But if you think back to the federal election, it was considered heretical when an NDP candidate suggested some of the oilsands had to be left in the ground so this is an interesting development.”

Alberta’s climate plan placed a hard cap of 100 megatonnes on oilsands production, but 130 megatonnes of projects have already been approved.

Dyer, who sits on the Alberta Oilsands Advisory Group, a coalition of industry, environmental and First Nations leaders, said Alberta faces the difficult task of taking approved projects off the table.

“We’re going to have a competitive process whereby the Alberta regulator decides which projects go forward. They can’t all go forward under the cap so again we’re in a situation where the Alberta Energy Regulator, instead of approving every project, has to decide which of these projects is better for Alberta,” he said.

“If we’re never going to extract all of the bitumen, why don’t you high-grade and take the most profitable stuff that has the least environmental impact?”

Dyer said it’s important for Alberta to recognize a global transition away from fossil fuels is taking place.

“You’ve got to consider the Paris agreement and countries musing about being fossil fuel free by 2050 and the uptake of electric vehicles,” he said.

“It’s a tough point for Albertans but whether we like it or not the world’s changing,” he said. “At the current rate of production it would take us 200 years to get through the oilsands. It’s just inconceivable that will happen.”

So, if some of Alberta’s bitumen is being taken off the table, a conversation needs to take place about how that will happen. Dyer said he hopes that conversation will take place publicly and transparently.

“I think if we get policy to move from the idea that you extract everything regardless of the benefit or the cost and instead you actually make decisions based on optimizing benefits, that can only be a positive thing.”

Image: Steve Williams at a 2012 Suncor Annual General Meeting 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.

After decades of insufficient or insincere attempts to address emissions from Canada’s fastest growing source of climate pollution, a new government-sponsored oilsands advisory group may help resolve political gridlock surrounding the nation’s most contentious natural resource by bringing together industry, environmental and indigenous stakeholders.

The Oil Sands Advisory Group (OSAG) is tasked with helping the province implement a new emissions cap for the oilsands that limits greenhouse gas output to 100 megatonnes per year and will also advise on reducing the overall environmental impacts of production, according to a government statement released Wednesday.

According to Tzeporah Berman, the group's co-chair and a well-known environmentalist, the composition of the advisory group represents a notable shift in the political landscape.

“Let's be clear: under previous governments environmental leaders had very little access and were outright ridiculed by many ministers and departments,” Berman told DeSmog Canada. “First Nations leaders were simply shut out. Climate change was denied.”

“A lot has changed in a year in Alberta and it is opening up new conversations.”

Alberta announced new climate legislation last fall that for the first time in the province’s history put an end to the notion of endless oilsands growth. Upon release of the new plan, Premier Rachel Notley, flanked by leaders of industry, prominent environmental organizations and local First Nations, said, “This is the day we stop denying this is an issue, and this is the day we do our part.”

The climate plan marked not only a new era of climate leadership (it was called a “pigs fly” situation) but a fresh approach to resolving the political gridlock that for years has pitted climate advocates and environmental groups against a seemingly entangled block of government and industry.

Berman, who stood with Notley during the climate plan announcement in November, said she’s optimistic that, working together, these strange bedfellows can make real change to a stagnant climate leadership environment and “move past the polarization of the oilsands.”

“The fact that the government just appointed people like me, who have been fierce critics shows its resolve to face and solve the hard stuff,” she said. “So instead of trading opinions through the media, those of us who have been 'adversaries' will be sitting down with a common purpose and a shared mandate.”

Dave Collyer, group co-chair and former president of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, echoed the sentiment: “It is the diversity of this group and its problem-solving focus on emissions leadership, local environmental performance and innovation that will help de-escalate conflict and contribute to the ongoing success of this important industry.”

According to the Conference Board of Canada, Canada ranks among the worst in the world for per capita greenhouse gas emissions, following the U.S. and Australia. Although Alberta accounts for only 11 per cent of the population, it contributed 36 per cent of national emissions in 2013.

The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and those emissions are projected to grow enough to nullify emissions reductions in other sectors and jurisdictions across the country.

“The simple fact is Alberta can’t let its emissions grow without limit,” energy minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd said in a statement, “but we can grow our economy and our market by showing leadership, including reducing our carbon output per barrel.”

Simon Dyer, member of the new advisory group and director of the Pembina Institute in Alberta, said Alberta is finally treating oilsands environmental management and climate change “as they deserve to be treated: as serious public policy issues that need big change.” 

“I’ve been working on these issues for more than a decade and it was always traditionally framed as just a communications, PR air war,” Dyer told DeSmog Canada, adding the change in government engagement is “very welcome.”

There are still lots of issues in the oilsands that need to be resolved, Dyer said, “but they are only going to be resolved by a lot of people talking about them and the government making substantive changes.”

Alberta is playing catch up when it comes to environmental management and embracing renewable energy, Dyer said.

Earlier this week the government announced new incentives for enhanced oil and gas programs, something many in the environmental community were distressed to see. Equally distressing for some climate advocates is the province’s staunch support of building new oil export pipelines.

“I think what the government is trying to do is allay concerns they are anti-oil and gas and at the same time recognizing that a new economy is going to have to be based on renewables so we have to expand the clean economy,” Dyer said. “That’s the political reality in Alberta. It’s unfortunate but we’re behind and playing catch up.”

“That something like moving to 30 per cent renewables could be considered risky or out of step with the mainstream just shows how far behind Alberta has been and this government has to make big strides going forward,” Dyer added. “But they have to bring the rest of Alberta with them.”

#Alberta Brings Former Adversaries Together for New #Oilsands Advisory Group https://t.co/zzYjqLfAtJ #ableg #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/AXGeaio0HG

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 18, 2016

For years the oilsands have faced growing civil society opposition, especially with respect to expansion, impacts on First Nations treaty rights and the construction of new or expanded oilsands export pipelines.

Adam Scott from Oil Change International said his organization is encouraged the new body  “can help start a real discussion” about Alberta’s energy resources.

Although he cautions, “there is no acceptable climate scenario where Alberta would be allowed to grow the tar sands and build new pipelines like Kinder Morgan and Energy East.”

Tim Gray, one of the 18 members of the advisory group and executive director of Environmental Defence, said Alberta — as an oil-producing jurisdiction that has an interest in building new pipelines — faces some significant challenges.

“Industry — and the Alberta government to a lesser degree — has been adamant that they want to build more pipelines and they’ve tied the completion of those to a lot of economic promises and it’s not clear if those will be achieved or not even if they did build a pipeline."

Gray said he remains unconvinced pipelines are the best strategy for Alberta and that more work needs to be done to determine if any need for new pipelines will remain once the cap put on emissions is put into place.

He said his organization remains opposed to pipeline projects like Energy East.

But, he added, he is encouraged such questions are being put to the diverse group of people that comprise the oilsands advisory group.

“I think the fact that you have organizations around the table that have very divergent views on the necessity of pipelines and what is the best way forward for an oil jurisdiction that is interesting and will make for challenging circumstances for the development of recommendations,” he told DeSmog Canada.

“But I think it shows a level of maturity by the government that they’re willing to have people with those divergent opinions and trying to work through them and bring data to bear.”

Berman said the group will begin the immediate work of creating new rules to keep oilsands emissions under the 100 megatonne cap.

“This is one of the first times in the world that an oil jurisdiction has voluntarily set a limit and we are breaking new ground,” Berman said. 

“Our goal is recommendations in the fall and then we will move on to designing reviews for cumulative impacts on water, air and biodiversity.”

“Within two years we will have made recommendations on all of those issues plus developed proposals for developing a long-term pathway on climate leadership between now and 2050.” 

For a province that has consistently failed to implement meaningful climate regulations on the oil and gas sector, the task at hand is enormous — but it's encouraging to see Alberta's willingness to bring together strange bedfellows and tackle the thorny questions head on.

Image: Suncor/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 poll of more than 1,800 Albertans conducted by EKOS Research Associates shows more than half the population wants the province to take stronger climate action by introducing policies that limit carbon emissions.

The poll, commissioned by the Pembina Institute, also found 50 per cent of Albertans are in support of a broad price on carbon that would apply to both consumers and producers. Support for a price on carbon jumped by another 10 to 20 per cent if the money generated from the tax were to go towards carbon reducing technologies or projects.

Results also show a large portion of Albertans (66 per cent) want to diversify the province’s economy rather than up the competitiveness of the oil and gas industry (29 per cent). Forty-eight per cent of Albertans who took the poll said they feel the oilsands are large enough or should be downsized.

“It’s encouraging to see such strong support among Albertans for action on climate change,” Simon Dyer, Alberta regional director for the Pembina Institute, said.

“This poll shows that the public is open to many of the solutions being considered, such as an economy-wide price on carbon pollution, or phasing out coal power and replacing it with renewables.”

Exerpts from EKOS poll. Click image for more information.

Albertans also expressed a sense of obligation to reduce the province’s greenhouse gas output. Alberta is by far the largest emitter in Canada and the oilsands are the country’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Growing emissions from the industrial sector are the reason Canada will not meet its emissions reduction target under the Copenhagen Accord, according to Environment Canada.

It appears Albertans are taking their emissions profile to heart: the majority (56 per cent) said they feel Alberta must reduce emissions to address climate change while only 26 per cent disagreed.

In addition 70 per cent of participants said they want to see more investment in renewable energy sources in order to reduce the province’s reliance on coal-fired electricity, a major source of Alberta’s emissions.

Exerpts from EKOS poll. Click image for more information.

“This has been a year in which Albertans defy stereotypes, with this poll being one more example,” Frank Graves, president of EKOS, said.

‘There is a large constituency in Alberta that wants to see the province be an environmental leader on issues like climate change and the development of the oilsands.”

Exerpt from EKOS poll. Click image for more information.

Image: 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.

In the ongoing battle to win approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, Canada has repeatedly justified its climate inaction by pointing to the fact that it shares similar emission reductions targets to the U.S. In August of last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper even wrote a letter to President Barack Obama inviting “joint action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil and gas sector” if such efforts would help green-light the Keystone XL.

But this week’s announcement that Obama will use his executive authority to introduce a nationwide emissions reduction plan that targets more than 1,000 of the country’s most highly polluting power plants might leave Canada squarely in the dust.

Obama’s new plan — already being called the “most ambitious anti-global warming initiative of any U.S. president" — will introduce new standards by 2015 to decrease the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of power plants (responsible for 40 per cent of the country’s carbon pollution) by 30 per cent from their 2005 levels by 2030.

Cutting emissions and climate confusion

The new plan is expected to tackle emissions as well as contentious climate politics in the U.S. where political positioning on emissions standards and carbon tax schemes is often drawn along sharp lines.

“We see this as the pivotal battle on climate change,” Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) director of government affairs David Goldston said at a briefing last week. “For the first time, climate is going to be front and centre as the national issue. And what that means, we think, is that when this battle is over and the power plant standards are in effect, climate will have turned into an ordinary environmental issue.”

The NRDC has been pivotal in the creation of the new emissions standards and is leading a massive campaign this month to "demystify" climate change issues.

Oilsands trouble Canada’s emissions future

Such determination south of the border is bringing Canada’s stalled climate politics into sharper relief as the Harper government continues to hold GHG emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector at bay.

The federal government has promised to deliver strengthened emissions standards for several years but has consistently failed, especially to rein in emissions from the Alberta oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of GHGs.

Under the Copenhagen Accord, Canada committed to reducing GHG emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. But according to Environment Canada’s latest emissions report, Canada will fail to meet its own reduction targets using current measures.

Environment Canada data also shows emissions from the oilsands increased around 267 per cent between 1990 and 2011 despite a per barrel emissions decrease of a reported 26 per cent. The projected increase of oil production in the oilsands has emissions from the sector set to steadily increase for several decades.

“The EPA’s climate rules send a strong signal that the United States is serious about addressing its largest source of greenhouse gas pollution,” Simon Dyer, senior spokesman for the Pembina Institute, said in a statement. “In contrast, the Canadian government continues to resist action on addressing its major emissions growth problem — the rapidly increasing greenhouse gas pollution from oilsands production.”

“While Canada has the same 2020 emissions target as the U.S., our federal government has failed to produce a plan to meet its goal,” he said.

Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, echoed those sentiments, saying climate action in the U.S. demonstrates Canada’s need to rein in emission from the oilsands sector.

“It’s time for Canada to follow suit,” he said in a statement released Monday. “We should all celebrate this U.S. action taken for the sake of our shared climate…It’s high time for Canada to step up, do what is right, and stop the soaring pollution of the tar sands.”

“Canada,” Gray said, “can either lead or be dragged along in this global shift towards a safer, cleaner, low carbon economy.”

Canada lacks leadership

A study released by Globe International, which surveyed nearly 500 pieces of climate legislation in 66 countries, found Canada lacked any “flagship legislation” for climate despite being in the world’s top 20 emitters.

Political support for strong climate standards in Canada has dwindled under the Harper government, which withdrew from the international Kyoto Accord in 2011.

According to federal Green party leader Elizabeth May, Canada has a history of following the “bad behaviour” of the U.S. when it comes to climate policies.

“When Barack Obama came up with the 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, Canada said ‘okay, we’ll take that target’ because it weakened our target [under Kyoto] even more,” she said in an interview last May.

A new international climate change regime is expected from the upcoming UNFCCC COP 21 meeting that will take place in Paris in 2015. Canada has been accused of acting as an "obstructionist" at international climate conferences for the last several years.

“Many Canadians,” May said, “don’t realize that the worst thing that Harper has done on climate, as bad as his domestic performance has been, has been undermining global negotiations.”

She added the most recent Environment Canada figures “make is absolutely crystal clear that there is no intention on the part of Stephen Harper for reaching the Copenhagen target either.”

Image Credit: Scout Turfankijan for Obama for America 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 new Ipsos Reid poll released today shows 76 per cent of Albertans are in favour of stronger greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations for industrial facilities.

The federal government has faced scrutiny for failing to release GHG performance regulations for the oil and gas sector for several years. Alberta’s existing rules, the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), are set to expire on September 1, 2014.

Facing the release of a new climate plan and potential new carbon tax arrangement, Alberta premier Dave Hancock said his government is in talks with industry.

“There are some producers – there are lots of producers – who would say: ‘Don’t do anything, this is already a cost to us, and we can’t afford to pay more because we don’t have any room to innovate, so it’s just a cost to us.’ The more progressive operators would say: ‘If incented appropriately, we can look harder,’” Hancock said.

“How do you actually create a process where big emitters can find a way to meet standards? It’s not a tax, it’s an alternative way of meeting the outcome,” he said.

A Progressive Conservative Party leadership vote is scheduled for September 6, leading some to speculate new emissions regulations will be left off the table until a later date.

“Waiting for consensus means waiting indefinitely,” Simon Dyer, the Pembina Institute’s regional director for Alberta and the North, said. “Albertans clearly want their government to make a decision and move forward with stronger greenhouse gas rules for industry.”

Alberta’s oilsands represent Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord. Environment Canada’s most recent emissions report, released in October 2013, shows Canada’s current measures are inadequate for reaching our emissions reductions targets.

Emissions trends reported in Environment Canada's 2013 Emissions Report.

A new study released by Globe International that examined nearly 500 pieces of climate legislation in 66 countries found Canada had “no flagship legislation” for climate despite being in the top 20 worldwide emitters. The report also notes Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Accord in 2011.

According to the Pembina Institute, “if Alberta were a country, its per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.” They also report “7 per cent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions came from oilsands plants and upgraders in 2010.”

Emissions from the extraction and upgrading of oilsands bitumen is estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive on a per barrel basis than conventional crude produced elsewhere in Canada or the U.S.

Alberta’s favoured “double-double” emissions reduction plan would require companies to pay a $30 per tonne penalty if emissions were not reduced by 24 per cent per unit of production, according to the Pembina Institute.

“Another delay to improving Alberta’s emissions rules represents a liability for an industry that thrives on certainty and is under scrutiny for its climate impacts. Strengthening these rules would send an important signal to Alberta’s customers that taking action on climate change is a priority,” Dyer said.

The new poll shows strengthening emissions standards is strongest among university graduates, 83 per cent of whom support stronger regulations. Just 6 per cent of poll respondents opposed or were strongly opposed to stronger rules, while 18 per cent said they were unsure whether or not they were in support.

Image Credit: Kris Krug via flickr

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

The Alberta government has barred the Oilsands Environmental Coalition from hearings on a proposed new oilsands development by Southern Pacific Resource Corp., even after a similar decision last fall was overturned by a judge.

Conservationists say the decision only makes clearer the Alberta government's tendency to shut down public dialogue on resource development. "The government hasn't learned its lesson from last time," said Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, one of the groups in the coalition.

Dyer said the coalition will be appealing the second ruling, reports the Canadian Press.

Alberta Environment first denied the coalition standing to participate in hearings about a development on the MacKay River in northern Alberta in 2012, which would expand an existing steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) project. The expansion would result in the extraction of an additional 24,000 barrels per day (bpd) of bitumen.

The Alberta government argued that the group was not directly affected by the project, even though members of the Pembina Institute have a recreational lease in the area, and 45 others live nearby in Fort McMurray.

The coalition applied for a judicial review of the decision. During the process, a 2009 Alberta Environment memo was discovered that singled out the coalition, which includes Pembina and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association, as "not simple to work with" and as having published "negative media on the oil sands."

Justice Richard Marceau invalidated the government's decision on the basis of the 2009 memo, writing in his statement that the law does not permit the Alberta government to "reject statements of concern from those persons or groups who voice negative statements about proposed oil sands development."

"The process of identifying who is 'directly affected' should not be decided by the application of rigid rules," Marceau wrote, noting that there would be no environmentalist voices present at the Southern Pacific hearing if the coalition were barred.

Regardless, in a March 27 letter to the coalition, Alberta Environment official Kevin Wilkinson repeated the very reasoning that got the 2012 decision overturned.

Wilkinson wrote that the coalition is not a legal entity and cannot therefore be considered directly affected, saying that the recreational lease "is no more compelling than the ability for any Albertan to recreate on public land." He added that homes in Fort McMurray, 45 kilometres from the development, were too distant for residents to be considered directly affected.

Wilkinson also assured coalition members that their concerns would be "considered by the designated director, even if the person who submitted the concern is found not to be directly affected."

Dyer noted that the coalition has participated in many other provincial hearings before, and continues to be granted standing at joint federal-provincial hearings. He said that the government's decision is indicative of a pattern of tighter restrictions on who gets to voice concern to regulators about the oilsands.

Earlier this year, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) cancelled the public hearing on the Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.'s proposed Kirby Expansion Project after none of the groups that applied to participate were allowed standing. Statements of concern were filed by the Oilsands Environmental Coalition and several First Nations, all of whom were denied. The Kirby Expansion Project, another SAGD project, was subsequently "referred by the hearing panel AER staff for further review and dispensation without hearing."

Nigel Bankes, professor of resource law at the University of Calgary, called the government's tests for deciding standing at hearings "narrow and stringent."

Spokeswoman Katrina Bluetchen said that there has been no regulatory change at Alberta Environment. "Nothing has changed," she said. "It was deemed (the coalition) was not directly affected."

The government has kept information on how many groups have been denied standing in hearings restricted. An access to information request put in by the Canadian Press has been at Alberta Environment for six months without any result.

Dyer thinks Alberta Environment's actions harm the ability of the province to evaluate the impact of resource development, saying that "the government should err on the side of allowing people to speak and collecting input" to help make responsible decisions.

Image Credit: Kris Krug via Flickr

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

In a case that featured what Justice R.P. Marceau called “direct apprehension of bias” on the part of the Alberta government, the Pembina Institute has won its appeal to overturn the Government of Alberta’s decision to exclude the think tank from the review process for a proposed tar sands project.

Justice Marceau ruled Alberta’s decision was tainted. During the court challenge, the Government of Alberta was required to table documents that revealed that the institute's recent publications concerning tar sands development, as well as a perceived unwillingness to “work cooperatively,” may have contributed to the government’s decision to exclude Pembina from the process.

As part of the Oilsands Environmental Coalition, Pembina filed a Statement of Concern with the Alberta Energy Regulator (formerly the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board) to participate in hearings about Southern Pacific Resource Corp’s proposed in situ project on the MacKay River near Fort McMurray. But the application was rejected, prompting Pembina to take its case to Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench for appeal.

With this decision, Pembina will now have to reapply to the Alberta Energy Regulator for standing, something Simon Dyer, policy director at Pembina, said has become even more difficult after the so-called streamlining of the regulatory process.

“They actually made changes to make the standing test even more restrictive,” he said. Where parties once had to prove that the project in question would affect them directly, they now have to prove both direct and adverse impact in order to trigger a hearing. “Everything is pushing toward less public participation…in these regulatory processes, which is unfortunate.”

Under this process, the Government of Alberta can effectively stymie public debate by rejecting all statements of concern, keeping alternative perspectives off the official record and pushing projects through without a hearing. Pembina has reported that in 2012, the Government of Alberta received applications for more than 36,000 energy developments, 410 of which were for in situ projects. The AER held only seven hearings.

Dyer said the decision should be a wake-up call to the industry about the accessibility of the regulatory process.

“If the public doesn’t considered the process to be fair, there’s a risk that stakeholders will take their concerns elsewhere and use other means of protest,” he said. “Alberta is travelling the world and saying they’re serious and fair and world-class regulators of environmental management, and I think this case suggests that’s not the case.”

Pembina intends to present evidence to show the adverse impact the Pacific Southern Resource project will have on the area, particularly on the endangered woodland caribou population. Dyer said there are several in situ projects proposed within the range of this species, some in places where the environmental impact of industry already exceeds acceptable levels. The McKay River project also intends to draw 1.7 million litres of ground water per day, a number Dyer says is untenable.

But there is still no guarantee the government will accept its statement.

“It would be ludicrous if we’re not able to get a hearing despite the clear evidence of exceeding of these thresholds.”

Dyer added that, in theory at least, Pembina’s work is conducive to the AER’s mandate of effectively evaluating and monitoring tar sands projects.

“We’ve got a strong catalogue of research work that we use media to promote, and all very much with the goal of seeking to make improvements in oil sands environmental management,” he said. “You’d think our work would actually be useful to the Government of Alberta, but it’s seen as threatening.”

Image Credit: Gord McKenna 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.