Sharks, sea turtles, corals, wolffish — the 1,200 kilometre Laurentian Channel off the southwest coast of Newfoundland is home to tremendous biodiversity.

And that’s the reason it’s set to become Canada’s newest Marine Protected Area, a designation designed to conserve and protect vulnerable species and ecosystems.

There’s just one catch: draft regulations for the proposed 11,619 square-kilometre protected area allow oil and gas exploration and drilling for much of the year. In addition, the government has reduced the size of the protected area by more than one-third from what was originally planned.

Documents obtained by The Narwhal paint a picture of a disturbingly close relationship between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and provides clues of how a “marine protected area” ended up allowing offshore oil drilling.

Canada is in a hurry to classify more marine areas as “protected” to meet an international target to protect 10 per cent of its oceans by  2020. Whether an area that allows offshore drilling will even qualify as protected is the subject of heated international debate.

ICYMI: Is Canada Fudging the Numbers on its Marine Protection Progress?

But “high confidence estimates” of up to 257 million barrels of oil and four trillion cubic feet of natural gas put the Laurentian Channel in the crosshairs of conservation and resource extraction.

The documents — obtained by The Narwhal via access to information legislation — reveal that lobbying meetings took place between government and industry without being recorded properly in the federal registry and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans provided the oil industry lobby group with an advance copy of a presentation.

CAPP received advanced copy of DFO presentation

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans conducted more than 30 consultations since mid-2014, when a proposed regulatory framework for the the Laurentian Channel was first distributed.

Stakeholders included the fishing industry, oil and gas players, the Shipping Federation of Canada, environmental organizations, academics, Indigenous groups and various governments. The last consultation of this kind occured on October 28, 2016, with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Committee on Oceans Management.

CAPP is listed as only having two consultations with DFO as part of this process: once on May 19, 2016, and another on Oct. 20, 2016.

But on the morning of the second meeting, Stephen Snow — DFO’s manager of oceans for Newfoundland and Labrador — sent an intriguing e-mail to Jennifer Matthews, a policy analyst at CAPP.

Both parties indicated that a call occured on Oct. 19 between Snow and CAPP, with the DFO manager beginning his Oct. 20 e-mail as “a follow-up from our discussion yesterday.” Then, Snow explained that he was attaching a draft presentation about marine conservation targets that he would be presenting that afternoon.

“As we have now concluded consultations with all stakeholders, we have not been giving out the presentation as it contains sensitive information from a DFO perspective that needs to be accompanied with the ‘Presenter,’ ” Snow wrote.  Following that, he specifically requested that CAPP “not share or distribute the power point and delete it as we agreed.”

Excerpt from documents released to The Narwhal via Freedom of Information Legislation. The e-mail exchange shows Stephen Snow, DFO’s manager of oceans for Newfoundland and Labrador, requesting CAPP review, then delete, a presentation regarding marine conservation targets.

This communication raises some big questions, according to Gretchen Fitzgerald,  director of Sierra Club Canada’s Atlantic region chapter.

“It seems like there’s some advanced notice and even some discussions that are happening alluded to in the e-mail that would make you think there’s a little bit too much collaboration going on,” Fitzgerald told The Narwhal.

“It’s just worrying when you see people getting documents in advance of what’s supposed to be a public multi-stakeholder consultation, and being given more opportunity to prepare and an inside-track on these consultations that are supposed to put everybody on an equal footing.”

Stella Ruddock, communications officer for DFO, said in an interview with The Narhwhal that the presentation was sent out early as CAPP had employees in Halifax as well as on the ground in Newfoundland, where the meeting was held, and that it was an attempt to “try to speed up the process of getting the meeting going on time.”

She said that DFO requested that CAPP not share the presentation as “there were maps in the presentation that DFO felt might be misconstrued, I guess, if they weren’t accompanied by the presenter. They felt that if it got out, if it was circulated without the presenter, it might be misunderstood.”

Ruddock couldn’t comment on which specific maps were considered sensitive, or if it’s standard practice for DFO to send out a draft presentation to stakeholders prior to a consultation.

10 CAPP members meet with DFO days after draft regs published

On June 27, 2017 — only three days after the draft regulations for the marine protected area were published in the Canada Gazette — CAPP and at least six other industry heavyweights met with DFO for 45 minutes.

That list included senior representatives from BP, Shell Canada, ExxonMobil, Nexen, Suncor and Statoil. However, e-mails from both CAPP and DFO made reference to “10 CAPP members,” suggesting more may have been present in the room.

Only CAPP and ExxonMobil actually registered the communication in the federal lobbying registry.

ICYMI: BP Wants to Drill Underwater Wells Twice the Depth of Deepwater Horizon in Canada

All companies should have registered the meeting, regardless of it being organized by CAPP, said Duff Conacher, founder of Democracy Watch.

“My opinion is that the companies violated the Lobbying Act by failing to register the meeting in the monthly communications registry,” Conacher said.

BP wasn’t even registered to lobby the federal government (and hadn’t been since 2014).

DFO wanted voluntary commitment not to drill in conservation area

A scenario note prepared for DFO’s senior assistant deputy minister of ecosystems and fisheries management Kevin Stringer noted that CAPP members “will likely raise questions on the intention of the government to prohibit or limit current or future oil and gas activities in MPAs in general, but more specifically in the proposed Laurentian Channel Oceans Act MPA.”

It also noted that DFO’s main objective for the meeting was to ascertain if CAPP would be willing to “demonstrate its marine stewardship commitment” by supporting a statement that “no calls for bid on leases in the Laurentian Channel will ever be issued in support of the long-term conservation of the area.”

It appears DFO did not meet that goal.

A summary of the meeting e-mailed out on July 10, 2017, stated that “there was some discussion about Laurentian Channel but not in detail or in any conclusive way; there was agreement to have an ongoing dialogue.”

Fitzgerald of Sierra Club said in an interview with The Narwhal that it was “quite startling” to see the number of senior representatives who met with DFO on June 27.

“I actually didn’t realize they were so interested in this piece of marine seascape,” she said. “But I think to them, it’s about their right to all the oceans on the East Coast of Canada. That’s the only reason they would assemble such a cast of characters.”

CAPP’s submission claims no serious impacts on marine mammals

Following the publication of the draft regulations on June, there was a 30-day window for public comment.

On July 21, three days before the window closed, CAPP sent its final comments to DFO. Signed by Paul Barnes — the director of the Atlantic Canada and Arctic regions for the association — the letter outlines CAPP’s argument for why it thinks that seismic and drilling activity in the region wouldn’t be seriously harmful to species and ecosystems.

Specifically, CAPP emphasized there have been no documented marine mammal injuries or deaths as a result of seismic surveys. In addition, it noted that impacts of drilling and production at two large offshore sites in Atlantic Canada have had negligible impacts on sediment and water quality monitoring.

Rodolphe Devillers, geography professor at Memorial University of Newfoundland and lead researcher at the Marine Geomatics Research Lab, reviewed CAPP’s final submission and said in an interview with The Narwhal that the facts presented appear accurate. However, he added the caveat:  “It’s just always a question of what facts they select in their letters and not others.”

For example, it’s true that there haven’t been any documented marine mammal mortalities as a consequence of seismic surveys, as it’s very difficult to relate deaths to specific sources.

It’s also consistent with the conservation objectives listed in the federal government’s draft regulations, with a particular focus on preventing “human-induced mortality.”

But as noted by Devillers, the overarching objective of the MPA is to “conserve biodiversity through the protection of key species and their habitats, ecosystem structure and function, and through scientific research.”

To him, and many other ocean scientists, that overarching objective requires the prevention of a wide range of disturbance and harms, not just deaths — something largely unknown due to a lack of scientific studies in the region.

“We do know as scientists that seismic activities do have a number of impacts, which can be loss of hearing, challenges to feed and communicate … Those affect the primary objective of the MPA.”

Seismic testing ‘serious’ pollutant: scientists

A 2013 report by Dalhousie University biologist Lindy Weilgart concluded that at least 37 marine species have been shown to be impacted by seismic testing, and that airgun noise “must be considered a serious marine environmental pollutant.”

On June 22, 2017 — incidentally, a single day before the government released its draft regulations — an article was published in Nature Ecology & Evolution that concluded seismic surveys can double or triple the death rates of zooplankton within a 1.2 kilometre radius. The authors wrote: “Significant impacts on plankton by anthropogenic sources have enormous implications for ocean ecosystem structure and health.”

Devillers voiced similar concerns about CAPP’s positioning on potential contamination.

In the final submission, CAPP said that no drill waste or petrogenic hydrocarbons have ever been detected “outside the 500 metre safety zone during drilling or operations phases” of nearby offshore projects. But Devillers noted that “even if it’s within 100 metres, it’s an impact on the ecosystem.”

“Sometimes things go wrong,” he said. “How willing are we to accept that things can go wrong? Even if it’s one chance in 50 years or something, that’s not acceptable. And they cannot guarantee that this will not happen.”

A simple fix could set clear standard for marine protected areas

A simple solution to all of this would be to amend the Oceans Act to prohibit all extractive activities in Marine Protected Areas, said Linda Nowlan, staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.

Currently, each distinct protected area  is governed by an individual regulation, which can prohibit and allow certain activities. That’s why the Laurentian Channel Marine Protected Area allows oil and gas activities while the nearby St. Anns Bank Marine Protected Area banned them.

In comparison, Canada’s “National Marine Conservation Areas” — which include Ontario’s Fathom Five National Marine Park and Quebec’s Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park — have a blanket prohibition of oil and gas activities.

Nowlan suggested the federal government should take advantage of its ongoing amendments to the Oceans Act to prohibit all “harmful activities,” including oil, gas and mineral exploration and development.

“It sets the bar from the start so industries can’t go into negotiations and whittle down protection, which is what seems to have happened in Laurentian Channel,” Nowlan said.

The government is expected to release the final regulations this year.

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.

Eleven of Canada’s largest oil and gas companies have dozens of subsidiaries and related companies in known tax haven jurisdictions, according to a new report from the Ottawa-based non-profit Canadians for Tax Fairness.

Those companies include Suncor, Enbridge, CNRL, TransCanada, Imperial Oil, Cenovus and Husky.

The report, titled “Bay Street and Tax Havens: Curbing Corporate Canada’s Addiction,” examined the largest 60 companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and found that just four didn’t have a publicly listed subsidiary in a known low-tax or no-tax haven.

“If you can afford the lawyers and accountants and it’s legal to do, you’ll do it,” report author Diana Gibson, told DeSmog Canada.

“Maximizing shareholder returns is the job of the CEOs and if it’s legal to avoid taxes then they will.”

Knowing how pervasive the issue is among oil and gas companies in Canada is important in order to pressure lawmakers to act, Gibson added.

“We’re not talking about slapping the hands of a couple of folks — we’re talking about a problem that needs to be fixed in the legislation.”

The new report shows companies like Enbridge and TransCanada are in line with global oil and gas industry practices. In 2015, a federal parliamentary inquiry in Australia found ExxonMobil and Chevron hold a combined $87 billion USD in tax havens.

Canadian Oil and Gas Companies Own a Combined 46 Entities in Tax Haven Countries

The report arrives on the heels of the explosive Paradise Papers, which contained 13.4 million confidential documents implicating many renowned figures — including the Queen, Bono and three former Canadian prime ministers — in the legal but ethically dubious practice of storing money in offshore tax havens.

The revelations also come as many oil and gas companies claim government policies such as methane regulations, carbon pricing or higher royalty rates create undue financial burdens and could cripple their business case.

“We constantly hear these stories about these large corporations — particularly oil and gas corporations in Alberta — operating on the margins: that they can barely make ends meet; that any shift will ultimately affect their bottom line and cost jobs and all of those things,” Ricardo Acuña, executive director of the Parkland Institute, told DeSmog Canada.

Those common talking points paint of picture of an industry without profits to hide, Acuña said.

The new report contradicts that, he said.

In total, the report calculated that oil and gas companies own a combined 21 listed subsidiaries and 25 companies inferred to be related.

These were identified by using information from corporate filings and company registries.

There could be more: Gibson from Canadians for Tax Fairness said the figures in the report are likely incomplete due to a lack of transparency required from companies.

Enbridge, TransCanada Among 11 Canadian Oil and Gas Firms Using Tax Havens https://t.co/iDlneUBXEv #cdnpoli @CdnTaxFairness @ParklandInst #oilsands

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 16, 2017

Canadian Direct Investment in Tax Havens Grew A Hundredfold in 20 Years

The report’s definition of a “tax haven” provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), has four simple components: an extremely low or non-existent tax rate, a separation of tax rates from the country’s regular economy, a lack of regulatory supervision and an absence of information exchange.

In other words, a region where money is kept solely to house excess profits that people or corporations wish to remain untaxed.

The best known tax havens are based in Caribbean countries, including Barbados, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas. The U.S. state of Delaware actually served as the most popular location for Canadian companies to house their money, sporting 472 subsidiaries from only 60 companies.

It’s virtually impossible to know how much companies actually store in these jurisdictions.

But as noted in the report, Canadian foreign direct investment (FDI) into the top 10 tax haven jurisdictions has increased from $2.1 billion in 1994 to more than $284 billion in 2016.

While companies might claim that such a spike is associated with productive investments, there’s a complete disconnect from local employment: in Bermuda, there’s only one person hired for every billion dollars in assets, increasing to a mere 16 people per billion in Barbados.

Dozens of notorious tax treaties and tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) allow for the easy transfers of money between jurisdictions.

“We don’t know how much of this money is being hidden, how much of it’s being legitimately invested,” Acuña said.

“We’re trying to piece this together from information we don’t have. The government needs to crack down on what companies have to report out when they’re moving money around and in terms of their foreign direct investment.”

Canada Losing Estimated $10 Billion to $15 Billion Per Year

The report found Canada was missing out on an estimated $10 billion to $15 billion in taxes per year from the 60 companies listed.

Four of the oil and gas companies identified in the report were also listed in Canadian Business magazine’s 2014 investigation into corporations that were paying “unbelievably low tax rates.”

That investigation reported that over the course of a decade, CNRL, Enbridge, TransCanada and Suncor only paid between 13.6 per cent and 15.6 per cent of their income in taxes.

While companies like CNRL and Suncor receive significant deductions due to capital costs and royalty payments, such percentages are still extremely low when compared to the average Canadian’s tax rate of 42 per cent.

As noted by Acuña, it’s not enough to just increase corporate income rate rates or revamp the nonrenewable resource royalty framework if companies can continue to move their profits to low-tax jurisdictions. Such a move would have to be paired with a serious clampdown on rules about tax havens.

“The issue is that the law needs to change,” Gibson said. “You can’t crack down on legal tax avoidance.”

Billions Likely Needed in Coming Decades to Cover Environmental Costs

Gibson pointed to NDP MP Murray Rankin’s recently proposed private member’s bill as a good first step.

Bill C-362 would amend the Income Tax Act to deny tax breaks to financial transactions that “lack real economic substance.” That would ensure that earnings are taxed properly in the jurisdiction in which they’re made.

The report made several other recommendations. Those include requiring the Canada Revenue Agency to compile actual information and data on tax havens, renegotiating tax treaties to set a minimum threshold for tax rates, and taking a much stronger international leadership role.

Such conversations may take on additional urgency in coming years as costs of environmental and climate liabilities continue to mount for various levels of government, although Acuña expressed some skepticism about the federal government acting given Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s recent run-ins with similar issues.

“It sure looks like oil and gas companies are raking in the profits and stashing them away in tax havens, while Canadians are stuck with the mess they leave behind, including toxic tailings ponds, oil spills, and climate damages,” Patrick DeRochie, climate and energy program manager at Environmental Defence, told DeSmog Canada.

“Once you take away all the oil and gas subsidies and the money stowed away in tax havens, and start accounting for the massive costs to the environment and public health, you get an industry that is no longer economical.”

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 Energy Regulator (AER) has approved a tailings management plan from oilsands giant Suncor, despite the plan relying on “newly patented, unproven technology” that will require decades of monitoring.

Wednesday’s decision came only six months after the AER rejected Suncor’s proposed plan for the same project because it relied on unproven technology and a 70-year timeline for reclamation. The regulator only later agreed to re-review the plan.

So what changed? Uh, nothing.

“Suncor really hasn’t budged an inch in terms of actually changing anything,” said Jodi McNeill, policy analyst at the Pembina Institute, in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

Critics are also concerned that the approval will set the tone for the remaining seven tailings management plans: all of which depend on unproven technologies in some capacity.

“Suncor has been operating for 50 years: they shouldn’t be given another 15 years to monitor and confirm tailings treatments that may or may not work,” said Tzeporah Berman, former co-chair of the Alberta Oil Sands Advisory Group, in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

“It is not a matter of the AER asking for more details. It’s that oilsands companies should not continue to operate if they once again have shown they don’t know how to clean up the mess they make. They have other technologies they can use. They just don’t want to pay for them.”

Alberta Approves Suncor #Tailings Plan Despite Reliance on ‘Unproven Technology’ https://t.co/sdUMYLdBBs #oilsands @james_m_wilt pic.twitter.com/rEZb8wfHDu

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 27, 2017

Industry Has ‘Taken Advantage of Flexibility’ of Regulator

It’s been a long and windy road to get to this point.

Directive 085 was introduced by the AER in mid-2016 to replace the failed Directive 074, which was implemented in 2009 and saw every way company overshoot its respective tailing target without any consequence. The new regulations were intended to be less prescriptive and more flexible from plan to plan, working in tandem with the AER.

As evidenced by the approved Suncor plan, oilsands companies haven’t changed their ways at all.

“Industry just hasn’t held up their side of the bargain: they’ve come back with really vague, inadequate criteria and plans to water cap fluid tailings with extremely long reclamation timelines,” McNeill said. “They’ve taken advantage of that flexibility rather than using it as a way to come to the table with ambitious plans.”

The technology that McNeill referred to, water capping, would see fine tailings covered by freshwater to create an “end pit lake” that would eventually transition into a healthy aquatic ecosystem.

Glenn Miller, professor of natural resources and environmental science at the University of Nevada, has previously described end pit lakes as “a grand experiment that is highly uncertain and problematic.”

Suncor Must Provide Plan by 2023, Only 10 Years Before Planned Mine Closure

Suncor’s revised application included a supplementary chemical treatment called Permanent Aquatic Storage Solution (PASS), intended to keep the fine tailings consolidated at the bottom of the pit.

“It’s just another supplementary component of water capping, “McNeill said. “And it doesn’t address the fact that water capping oilsands tailings itself is unproven, risky, extremely unpopular amongst stakeholders and unapproved by the regulator.”

McNeill said that if that fails, Suncor’s fallback plan would require hundreds of years of monitoring and there would be a “really high likelihood that it’s going to sink into an unmanaged swamp.”

Key Tailings Testing Facility Still MIA

As previously reported by DeSmog Canada, the Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) — a research alliance of most oilsands producers — has long talked about constructing a massive test facility called the Demonstration Pit Lakes Project, featuring more than a dozen mock tailings ponds.

According to COSIA’s website, the facility was scheduled to open in 2017. Yet there’s still no indication that construction has even started on the project. That means the key testing facility planned to determine the viability of end pit lake technology is totally MIA, despite it needing at least 15 years of testing and monitoring to adequately evaluate.

The AER noted in its approval that the Government of Alberta is expected to create policy on water capping and end pit lakes, with Suncor proposing “final closure outcomes” for the plan by 2023.

But even if the Demonstration Pit Lakes Project opened tomorrow, that would only allow for five or six years of monitoring: less than half of what’s required for proper evaluation.

“They’re all banking on the results of these different COSIA projects to guide the use of those technologies,” McNeill said. “The difficult thing there is it’s ultimately going to take decades to really understand all of the implications of this.”

Oilsands Companies Have Only Contributed $900 Million of $20 Billion in Securities

Compounding the problem is the lack of security deposits in the province’s Mine Financial Security Program, established to prevent Albertans from having to pay clean-up costs if a company goes bankrupt.

Currently, there’s only $1.4 billion in the fund, which is around $19 billion short of what’s required for the conservative estimates of potential costs.

“The longer they are allowed to exist the more likely it is the taxpayers of Alberta and Canada will be stuck with the enormous cost of cleaning them up,” said Kevin Taft, former Alberta Liberal Party leader and author of the recent book Oil’s Deep State, in an interview with DeSmog Canada. “When the bills come due for the tailings ponds in 15 years of more, Suncor may not even be in business.”

McNeill added that there’s a very concerning vagueness around timelines and penalties for non-compliance: “There’s no hard stop, no speed limits.”

Suncor Approval May Set Precedent For Remaining Tailings Plan Reviews

Ultimately, the AER receives its marching orders from the provincial government.

And even though Premier Rachel Notley was an ardent critic of tailings management while opposition environment critic, her government has failed to tighten acceptable parameters for reclamation or address long-standing criticisms of the AER, including lack of enforcement power, a mixed mandate and overly close relationship with industry.

“This shows that the AER still doesn’t have any teeth,” said Mike Hudema, climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Canada.

“We’ve had four straight premiers pledge to remove tailings ponds from Alberta’s landscape because of the toxic dangers that they pose. And what this announcement says is that we’re going to continue to see tailings lakes not only grow in size but be around for the next century.”

McNeill added that Pembina Institute has had “a lot of difficulty in getting any level of responsiveness” from the province when it comes to handing down stronger directions to the regulator.

“This is what happens when a regulator is fully paid for and apparently run by the industry,” Taft concluded.

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 lethal mix of migratory birds and oilsands tailings ponds are in the news again this month.

On September 20 we learned another 123 birds died or will be euthanized after landing on a Suncor tailings pond. And on September 27, Syncrude Canada will appear in court for failing to prevent the deaths of blue herons at an Alberta oilsands site, the very same crime the company was convicted of in 2010 after an estimated 1,600 ducks met the same fate on one of its tailings pond.

Convictions like Syncrude’s are supposed to help to prevent the deaths of waterfowl on oilsands sites. So why are we here again?

The outcome of the 2010 trial, in which Syncrude was found guilty of both federal and provincial crimes, resulted in a $3 million penalty, the lion’s share of which — $2.45 million — was handed out to a small group of beneficiaries in the largest “creative sentence” in Alberta’s history.

For certain crimes, judges can order creative sentencing penalties over and beyond fines; they can include reclamation activities, scholarships or research projects, for example. Creative sentencing projects are meant to compensate for harm caused by the crime and prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

A deeper look at what happened to the $2.45 million provides a glimpse into the intriguing world of creative sentencing and how companies like Syncrude, along with a tightknit network of organizations, can quietly benefit from environmental crimes while avoiding public scrutiny.

Companies Can Look Charitable Through Creative Sentencing

My research team at Mount Royal University (co-investigator Gillian Steward and research assistants James Wilt and Cassie Riabko) found creative sentencing beneficiaries are usually hand-selected by both prosecution and defence and presented to the judge for consideration. There is no opportunity to apply for creative sentencing funds and no rationale is provided to the public as to why certain candidates are chosen over others — though our research shows connections to offending companies sure can help.

We studied 83 creative sentences for environmental crimes in Alberta and found a closed system where sentencing goals were not made public and much information is not in the public domain. This includes final financial reports and even some of the final creative sentencing projects themselves.

Creative sentences certainly take more work for the Crown to put together. In Alberta, they have been praised for providing quick funding to charitable organizations —the University of Alberta is the leading beneficiary —and for attempting to compensate for environmental harms through education, research and conservation projects. But creative sentencing fines have also been directed to wealthy industry groups including the The Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers and even to a government department.

How #Syncrude and Friends Benefitted from ‘Creative Sentence’ in 2010 #Oilsands #DuckDeaths https://t.co/7cLOF6hbyn #AbLeg @jpaskey

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 22, 2017

Our analysis shows there is a troubling lack of transparency around the public recognition of funds that may obscure the fact that companies are funding these projects as the result of a criminal conviction, rather than an act of generosity.

For example, many sentences portray convicted companies as “sponsors” or “donors.”

In 1999, Hub Oil was found guilty after an explosion killed two workers and was ordered to pay for two named scholarships at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology.

Although the creative sentence was explicitly part of Hub Oil’s conviction, the company is listed as a “sponsor” of the scholarships on the institute's website — meaning a possible reputational boost for what is seen publicly as philanthropy.

The same holds for the listing of The Devon Canada Corporation Bursary at Olds College; this came from a $60,000 creative sentence ordered after Devon was convicted under Alberta’s Water Act.

The Beneficiaries of Syncrude’s $2.45 Million

Three beneficiaries were awarded funds in Syncrude’s creative sentence: the University of Alberta ($1.3 million), Keyano College ($250,000) and The Alberta Conservation Association ($900,000). Each of these organizations had previously received creative sentence funding and Syncrude was a donor or had done contract work for each. (In the case of U of A, the donations were to other parts of the university.)

Groups at the forefront of environmental change were not chosen. For instance, Ecojustice, the environmental law group that first brought the charges against Syncrude in 2010, did not receive creative sentencing funds.

The bulk of Syncrude’s creative sentence went to research into improving bird monitoring and deterrent systems in the oilsands. The award was perhaps puzzling given prosecutor Susan McRory spoke at length during Syncrude’s sentencing hearing about the company’s failure to use existing research into bird deterrence. (It hadn’t deployed any bird deterrents by April 28 when ducks died on a frothy tar-like mat, despite knowing birds migrate in that month.)

McRory said Syncrude even failed to used its own research from the 1980s that predicted “an event similar to what happened in this case.”

A duck on Syncrude's Aurora tailings pond. Photo: Todd Powell, Alberta Fish and Wildlife

Despite this, University of Alberta professor Colleen Cassady St. Clair had impressed the judge as an expert witness for the prosecution. She was awarded a $1.3 million creative sentence to research and provide advice to industry on how to improve bird monitoring and deterrent systems for birds in the oilsands. She was also ordered to work with an industry advisory committee and to make all research public.

Cassady St. Clair hired dozens of researchers who in turn produced research used to make 43 scientific recommendations to industry. Syncrude was court-ordered to respond to St. Clair’s report but was also told it could choose to implement recommendations if they were “reasonable, reliable and cost effective.”

In a written response, Syncrude mentioned 21 of the 43 recommendations, avoiding any mention of specific cautions against the use of lasers for bird deterrence and the use of berms to attempt to separate more toxic from less toxic tailings.

Cassady St. Clair said she told Alberta Justice that Syncrude’s response was vague and seemed to be part of a risk management process. The ministry did not appeal the company’s response although the court gave it the right to.  The bird monitoring program was privatized and largely out of public view.

In an interview Cassady St. Clair said she remains hopeful the recommendations will positively impact bird monitoring and management.

“I think it could have a ripple effect over time,” she said.

Of fresh charges against Syncrude for bird deaths on a sump pond, she told CBC there were other bodies of water that needed to be monitored on these sites.

The Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) was given $900,000 to purchase land west of Edmonton known as Golden Ranches with the goal of preserving waterfowl habitat.

ICYMI: What You Need to Know About NAFTA’s Investigation into Oilsands Tailings Leaks

The award came through a contact: ACA's corporate lawyer* worked for the firm that Syncrude was using. She set up for the ACA to provide a proposal as to what it would do to compensate for the loss of waterfowl. Compensating for harm is one of the goals of creative sentencing. (Another Syncrude case lawyer declared his conflict of interest to the court as a board member of a partnering organization for that land purchase.) At the time, the ACA didn’t know if the property owner would sell indicating the speed at which the proposal had to go before the judge.

Syncrude is listed as a donor on a sign near the purchased property and, in a separate project, is listed as a sponsor of the Alberta Conservation Association “Discover Guide.”

Keyano College, located in Fort McMurray, received $250,000 to develop a new wildlife management diploma program. In its creative sentencing proposal to the court, Keyano said the program would include Indigenous and part-time students.

But after surveying industry partners, Keyano discovered companies prefered to hire general environmental managers with wildlife expertise, rather than wildlife managers.

In its final report to Alberta Justice, Keyano did not mention Indigenous students. It did note that the college requested a change to the creative sentence to allow it to embed new wildlife courses into its existing environmental management program rather than developing a new diploma program. But we were unable to find a new creative sentencing order in the public domain. The college said 33 students had graduated from the newly enriched program as of 2016.

Keyano also recorded an unspent $29,143 from the creative sentence would be put toward a research project conducted in partnership with Syncrude. No court response to this proposed partnership exists in the public record.

Where To Go From Here?

Looking back, Syncrude’s creative sentence can be said to be investing in research and education — but given the new Syncrude charges, it didn’t seem to address weaknesses in the system: identifying reasons for and preventing bird deaths on oilsands water sites. Perhaps, the notion of preventing migratory birds from landing on tailings ponds some 640 football fields in size is just not doable. But companies are obliged to try.

Looking back, we found the overall creative sentencing system is one that operates in haste. Beneficiaries who are privately approached by the Crown scramble to put relevant proposals together between conviction and sentencing dates but when changes are made after the fact, that’s kept out of the public domain. Many mentioned a fund with wide latitude that organizations could apply to would be a good idea. Alberta Environment is considering that idea, too.

Perhaps more troubling, is the system of close ties that binds friendly beneficiaries to offending companies. Ultimately, with no specific direction from the court otherwise, companies and beneficiaries can credit creative sentence projects like philanthropy, rather than a court-ordered punishment.

If the court considers a creative sentence in the blue heron case perhaps it should strongly consider ordering research into eliminating tailings ponds altogether.

*Owing to author error, a previous version of this article incorrectly stated that a lawyer on the Alberta Conservation Board helped pave the way for a creative sentence proposal. It was the ACA corporate lawyer who helped pave the way for a creative sentencing proposal in the Syncrude 2010 case, and not an ACA Board member. The ACA Board was not involved in the creative sentence. We regret the error. 

Image: Dead mallard drakes on Syncrude's Aurora tailings pond. Photo: Todd Powell, Alberta Fish and Wildlife

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 future of Alberta’s sprawling tailings ponds is in serious crisis.

As of right now, there is no clear understanding if or how oilsands companies are going to clean up the 1.2 trillion litres of toxic petrochemical waste covering over 220 square kilometres in the province’s northeast.

On Monday, Environmental Defence and the U.S.’s Natural Resources Defense Council published a report that pegged potential costs for cleanup and reclamation at a staggering $51.3 billion: $44.5 billion for cleanup, with an additional $6.8 billion for rehabilitation and monitoring.

That amount exceeds the $41.3 billion in royalties collected by the province of Alberta between 1970 and 2016.

“Increasingly, as an Albertan, I am concerned that these will become public liabilities,” Martin Olszynski, law professor at the University of Calgary and expert in environmental law, tells DeSmog Canada.

“In my view, at this point, it’s more likely than not that they will become public liabilities.”

The two organizations behind the new research called on the Alberta government to reject any new tailings ponds applications and require existing tailings be cleaned up faster than they’re produced.

Hot waste fills a Suncor tailings pond facility. Photo: Alex MacLean

No Tailings Management Plans Approved So Far

With no rules restricting the creation of tailings, oilsands waste ponds grew unabated for over 50 years.

The first rules, introduced in 2009, mandated companies create targets “to minimize and eventually eliminate long-term storage of fluid tailings in the reclamation landscape” but were a complete failure. Every single oilsands company failed to meet their own targets under the new guidelines.

And while the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) introduced Directive 085 in mid-2016 in an attempt to deal with such issues, the effort has so far failed to produce tangible results.

Case in point: Suncor.

Oilsands giant Suncor’s tailings management plan, submitted under the new directive, was rejected by the AER in March.

According to the regulator the plan failed on three accounts: 1) the technology of choice to treat the tailings was allegedly unproven; 2) Suncor “did not provide adequate information” on the proposed alternative; and 3) the actual timeline for reclamation was unproven.

In a surprise move, the AER recently decided to re-review Suncor’s plan, although it is unclear if Suncor has addressed those major issues.

“In the original denial from the AER, [Pembina] agreed with essentially all of those concerns and didn’t feel like Suncor addressed them,” Nina Lothian, senior analyst at Pembina Institute, tells DeSmog Canada.

In its application for reconsideration, Suncor claimed the company didn’t provide proprietary information on new technology. That proprietary information has not been made available to the public.

A spokesperson for the AER tells DeSmog Canada that companies may request confidentiality concerning their application information.

“Confidentiality is rarely requested and only granted in compelling circumstances.”

Smoke, steam, and gas flares rise from the Suncor upgrading facility. Reclamation efforts seen to the right, on what was once a tailing pond. Suncor has reclaimed only 7 per cent of their total land disturbance. Photo: Alex MacLean

Industry Organization Hasn’t Provided Any Info On Tailings Experiment

The undisclosed nature of Suncor’s plans follows a long history of secrecy surrounding industry’s plans for tailings cleanup.

For years, the industry-funded Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) has pledged to work on a massive tailings cleanup facility called the Demonstration Pit Lakes Project.

COSIA has previous said the facility would potentially begin operation in 2017. The outcome of the Pit Lakes Project was meant to help inform the viability of tailings management for decades to come.

But as previously reported by DeSmog Canada, it’s unclear if COSIA has even started on the project.

When contacted for comment, COSIA referred DeSmog to a Syncrude spokesperson who couldn’t account for COSIA’s progress on the file.

Olszynski says Albertans deserve to know if COSIA is working on tailings management.

“The whole point of COSIA was to drive collaboration between oilsands producers recognizing there should be an economy of scale if they work together on some of these major environmental issues because they’re all dealing with the same issues,” he says.

“To then find out there’s some kind of proprietary issue that prevented Suncor from being fully transparent in its application is perplexing.”

When asked if the AER would integrate COSIA’s progress into the re-review of the Suncor plan, a spokesperson for the regulator wrote: “If information about COSIA’s Demonstration Pit Lake project is submitted as part of the application, then we will include it as part of our review.”

At this point, there is no public information about COSIA’s Demonstration Pit Lake project.

Earthen wall to a tailings pond at a Suncor mining site. Photo: Alex MacLean

Tailings Technology Can Take Over Decade To Prove

A key concern for critics of the AER’s decision about the Suncor plan is that of timelines.

Lothian of the Pembina Institute says that many of the tailings management plans that are being presented by proponents have fairly extensive timelines to get the landscape to the point of “ready to reclaim.” That would require a reasonably aggressive treatment in order to reduce the liability on the landscape.

“The plans that have been presented in aggregate are showing that tailings are continuing to accumulate,” she says. “We’re not seeing that sort of treatment and reclamation that we were hoping for.”

According to the AER, Directive 085 “specifies that the risks, benefits, and trade-offs associated with the proposed tailings treatment technology must be understood, have contingencies identified, and risks mitigated.”

But Olszynski says that process to understand if a tailings technology works can take between 10 and 15 years of monitoring. He adds that either COSIA should update its website to indicate that it won’t be able to reach its 2017 target or be forthright with the regulator and Albertans.

The AER didn’t make it clear how it intends to evaluate Suncor’s plan without that information.

Another Seven Tailings Management Plans Being Reviewed By Regulator

At the end of this month, the AER will host an “enhanced review process” of Suncor’s proposed tailings management plan using existing dispute resolution processes, according to an AER spokesperson.

This will be the very first time such a process has ever occurred.

Lothian says the review will be “an opportunity to have a much more constructive, open dialogue with both the proponent and those that have submitted statements of concern.”

It will involve organizations which have filed statements of concern, including the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Fort McKay Métis Community Association, McMurray Métis Local 1935, the Oilsands Environmental Coalition (Pembina and Fort McMurray Environmental Association) and Joslyn Energy Development.

The AER is also reviewing seven other tailings management plans, including from Syncrude, Shell, Imperial Oil and CNRL.

But the outcome of the AER’s reconsideration of the Suncor plan could very well set the tone for the remainder of the process, especially given that it represents the largest oilsands player and the first to receive a verdict.

“We were hopeful under the tailings management framework that we would see much more progressive treatment of tailings, and see that liability reduced on the landscape in the near term,” Lothian concludes.

“The plans that have been presented in aggregate are showing that tailings are continuing to accumulate. We’re not seeing that sort of treatment and reclamation that we were hoping for.”

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.

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.

Only three-and-a-half months have passed since the federal election, but fossil fuel companies and lobby groups haven’t wasted any time in ramping up their lobbying efforts.   Suncor, the country’s largest energy company by revenue, has led the pack in meeting with high-ranking federal officials — logging at least 12 meetings in just over one month.   Between Nov. 2 and Nov. 19 the dominant oilsands player met four times with Louise Metivier, who was Canada’s chief negotiator at the UN climate summit held in Paris between Nov. 30 and Dec. 12.   Steve Williams, the company’s CEO and head lobbyist, also met three times with Environment Minister Catherine McKenna (on Nov. 18, Dec. 7 and Dec. 8) another three times with Environment Canada’s chief of staff Marlo Raynolds (on Nov. 5, Dec. 7 and Dec. 9) and twice more with Gerald Butts, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s right-hand man and principal secretary ( Nov. 18 and Nov. 19).   “The meetings were preparatory meetings for Suncor’s participation at COP 21 in Paris,” explained Sneh Seetal, spokesperson at Suncor, via e-mail. “Our president and CEO, Steve Williams, attended as a member of the Canadian delegation at the invitation of the federal government. We discussed Suncor’s perspectives on climate change and how industry can help be a part of the solution.”

Lobbyists Include LNG Canada and TransCanada

Other oil and gas interests have displayed similar determination since the Liberals formed government.   Take LNG Canada Development (a Kitimat-based joint venture composed of Shell, PetroChina, Korea Gas and Mitsubishi), which met with Erin O’Gorman, assistant deputy minister of Natural Resources Canada, on Oct. 27, Nov. 5 and Jan. 8.   TransCanada, the proponent of both the Energy East and Keystone XL pipelines, lobbied Canada’s ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer, three times on Oct. 30.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association met with NEB chairperson Peter Watson on Nov. 2 and Dec. 17. And the Petroleum Services Association of Canada lobbied McKenna, Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Employment Minister MaryAnn Mihychuk in separate meetings on Dec. 22.

It’s important to keep in mind that the lobby registrations are likely just scraping the surface of the actual lobbying happening in Ottawa.   Richard Girard, executive director of research centre Polaris Institute, notes that only employees who spend more than 20 per cent of their month’s work on lobbying efforts are required to register as a lobbyist. As a result, Girard suggests there are “lots of meetings that are more likely taking place that we don’t know about.”   Even the meetings that are registered lack specifics, only hinting at general subjects such as “environment” or “energy.”   “It certainly provides you with a list of who’s seeing who, which is helpful,” says Gillian Steward, author of the Toronto Star’s 2015 Atkinson Series on public policy on the oilsands. “They do have to at least put down the topic of what they’re talking about. On the other hand, it can be very difficult to get — say, from CAPP — exactly what they’re presenting.”

Bear Head LNG Lobbies Federal Government 15 Times in 10 Weeks

Some companies have clearly been making plenty of moves, with Bear Head LNG — the company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas facility in Nova Scotia — meeting with Doer on Oct. 21, Oct. 26, Oct. 30, Nov. 10, Nov. 11, Dec. 10 and Dec. 18.   Represented by former U.S. ambassador Derek Burney, the company also lobbied the duo of Jay Khosla (assistant deputy minister of Natural Resource Canada’s energy sector) and Terence Hubbard (director general of Natural Resource Canada) four times between Nov. 12 and Dec. 29, with Khosla chatting individually with the company an additional four times in the window.

‘It’s a Question of Balance’

Girard notes that while the Canadian lobbying registry has improved over the years, it’s still flawed because it doesn’t show how much companies are spending on lobbyists, unlike the U.S. But reasonable conclusions can still be made.   “The number of times people register communications increases around certain important pieces of legislation,” says Girard, who served as co-author for the Polaris’ report Big Oil’s Oily Grasp. “Many of those pieces of legislation were very positive for the industry. We can’t draw the line, but yes we can see there’s a correlation between the level of lobbying — who’s lobbying and for what — and the outcome of the legislation.”   The Polaris Institute’s 2012 report found that that 2,733 lobbying communications were made by oil and gas companies between July 2008 and November 2012, far outweighing similar efforts by mining and forestry interests. Prominent lobbying organizations such as the Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers (CAPP), TransCanada, the Canadian Gas Association, Imperial Oil and Suncor led the way. Meanwhile, only 11 environmental non-governmental organizations were registered as lobbyists in that window.   “It’s a question of balance,” Steward says. “[Oil and gas companies] have a right to go and do that. It’s just that they have more resources and more power to actually have those meetings, where environmental and First Nations groups and other kinds of NGOs don’t have the funds or staff, and aren’t represented as well. It’s much harder for them to actually get their message across to the people who influence those decisions.”

Image: Steve Williams takes the helm as Suncor CEO in 2011.  

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.

It’s easy to assume the plummet in energy prices will be a boon for the fight against climate change as emissions-intensive oilsands projects are cancelled or put on hold, but experts say that will only be the case if we learn some lessons from the current downturn.

Here are the four key factors that will determine whether Canada cuts emissions during this downturn or simply moves from “heroin to methadone,” as one expert puts it.

1. Cutting oilsands emissions

Suncor, one of the biggest players in the oilsands, recently announced that it expects its emissions to increase by 28 per cent within five years.

To be sure, oilsands production — which the Pembina Institute dubs as the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada — is certainly suffering as of late: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers slashed 1.1 million barrels/day from its 2030 projection, while Goldman Sachs forecasts that conventional crude prices won’t breach $50/barrel for a decade-and-a-half.

And as Bloomberg reports, oilsands producers require $60/barrel to build a new in-situ project and $100/barrel for a new mining project (which helps explain why oilsands operations accounted for three-quarters of the barrels Goldman cut from its prediction).

But Amin Asadollahi, oilsands program director at Pembina, says the challenge of meeting national emissions targets (611 Mt in 2020 and 515 Mt by 2030) will remain unless the sector is “decarbonized” with the implementation of emissions-intensity improvements (vacuum insulated tubing or flow control devices for in-situ sites).

Despite cuts to projections, the sector is still anticipated to grow by close to one million barrels by 2030 (and many megatonnes of emissions with it).

Even though the per-barrel emissions have declined by close to one-third between 1990 and 2013, the overall increase in oilsands production pretty much cancels out those reductions.

Allan Fogwill, president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), says technological innovations such as using solvents instead of water for heating bitumen prior to extraction could dramatically reduce emissions over the next 35 years, with the caveat that CERI hasn’t yet explored how many of those technologies are economically feasible.

“There’s a significant amount of opportunity to reduce emissions in the oilsands and maintain or in fact increase production,” Fogwill says.

1. Cleaning up transport

While emissions from the industry will likely be cut due a temporary drop in oilsands-related emissions, pollution from other sectors — transportation, most notably — may neutralize such gains given that car usage increases with lower gasoline prices, which also boosts sales of vehicles like SUVs and Hummers.

But Anthony Perl, director of the urban studies program at Simon Fraser University (SFU), notes that record-low interest rates may be improperly harnessed to construct or repair car-centric infrastructure such as bridges or highways, pointing to the replacement of Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel as an example.

Perl, who co-authored Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight Without Oil, calls for the “future proofing” of such investments, which would require looking 50 or 60 years in the future and anticipating technologies like shared or autonomous vehicles, electric buses and better rail systems while avoiding investments in “stranded assets” like new highways, airport runway expansions and coal port infrastructure.

After all, Canada has committed to become a “post-carbon” society by 2100, which will require an array of new infrastructure.

Perl says: “Right now, that investment is not going into the oil infrastructure — which is not a bad thing — but it’s also not going into the alternative infrastructure because people say ‘oh well, that’s expensive and oil is cheap so let’s just party on.’ This would be the time for real leadership to factor the cost of future energy and collect the money that’s needed to build that green infrastructure going forward. But that requires policy leadership: some places have more of that than others, let’s say.”

Perl argues transport projects like Vancouver’s massive Port Mann Bridge will depreciate over time, unlike green infrastructure like rail and other forms of public transit projects.

1. Making energy renewable

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has frequently taken credit for a two per cent decline in emissions between 2006 (when the Conservatives first assumed leadership) and 2013.

However, the only two years emissions dropped were in 2008 and 2009, during the worst portions of the Great Recession, and have increased since (commentators have noted the brief decline may have been entirely neutralized if Ontario hadn’t phased out coal-fired power).

The United States experienced a similar recession-led trend with a 9.9 per cent drop in emissions between 2007 and 2009. But while the replacement of coal-fired power plants with natural gas for electricity generation has historically been credited for the decline, a Nature Communications study published in July found that per-capita consumption played a far larger role.

Klaus Hubacek, an ecological economist at the University of Maryland and co-author of the study, says that he and the three other writers have since re-analyzed the data, breaking the “fuel mix” segment into individual parts to find out which source of electricity generation contributed most to the decline in emissions.

One of the biggest findings they’ve encountered, Hubacek says, is that renewables accounted for far more of the emissions decline than originally thought and that the rise of natural gas may have actually crowded out the growth of renewables.

“If you translate it into CO2 emissions then you see renewables has a much more important role, as renewables have low CO2 emissions — almost zero — versus gas which has some CO2 emissions,” he says.

A March 2015 report published by Sustainable Canada Dialogues predicted that Canada could achieve 100 per cent low-carbon electricity generation by 2035, which would result in significant emissions reductions. A Clean Energy Canada study noted investments in renewables rose by 88 per cent in 2014, but that the federal government needs to do far more to promote the sector that it currently is.

1. Pricing carbon

The very first policy recommendation listed by the Sustainable Canada Dialogues report, which featured contributions from 60 scholars, was the adoption of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program. It’s an idea that Pembina’s Asadollahi and SFU’s Perl both support.

In a recent poll conducted by EKOS Research on behalf of Pembina, it was found that half of Albertans would also support an economy-wide carbon tax (in contrast to the levy the province currently features, which only taxes large emitters).

“Part of the reason oilsands emissions are high is because of high energy use,” Asadollahi says. “When you price carbon, it will automatically incentivize more efficient and more lean management and practices, making operations become more competitive.”

Perl adds that now is the time to be deploying such mechanisms, suggests politicians should take the ongoing oil price plunge as a lesson, one that shows we need to consider more moving parts — from carbon pricing to alternative infrastructure projects to renewable technology — to plan ahead.

Similarly, economist Margaret Walls argued in an April article for the Wall Street Journal that now’s the time for such action as “a carbon tax might help to avert some capital investment decisions that would lock in higher emissions.”

“The volatility is becoming greater,” Perl says. “If you think of it in relative terms, the spiking of oil prices and then the collapse of oil prices is a sign to me that the system is becoming less sustainable. We should expect that to continue. Right now, even if we don’t do anything else for sustainable development in the future, we’re laying the groundwork inadvertently for an even bigger spike the next time.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has adamantly refused the option. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau have both committed to emissions regulations.

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 wake of the NDP’s new majority government in Alberta, Steve Williams, the CEO of Suncor, announced that he believes climate change is happening and the right way to address it is a carbon tax that applies to both producers and consumers.

Well it’s pretty obvious what happened here. Steve Williams read Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything” and was so inspired by her vision of a just, sustainable future that he set short-term considerations of profit aside for his deeply held moral convictions, in preparation for his eventual ascension unto heaven. Or maybe there’s something else going on…

Maybe the oil industry knows that funding climate denial is a losing battle, so they’re falling back to their next line of defense. “Yes, okay, climate change is happening, but how can we pretend to care in a way that costs us the least amount of money? And can we fit the word green into it? Or maybe a picture of a baby lemur?"

Corporations don’t have morals, they’re profit-making robots. They’re run by people, and those people are often perfectly nice. But if they don’t work the controls properly, the robot will crap them into the unemployment line.

I know Canadians are supposed to be polite, but if we’re serious about doing our part to avoid catastrophic climate change, we should consider being a lot less polite to the oil industry. They’ve shown really bad manners by spending millions to block climate action to protect their billions in profits, so maybe we shouldn’t focus on whatever solution offends them the least.

Maybe it’s time to be straight up rude and uncivilized and take some of those billions and spend them on creating jobs in renewable energy, to make the transition we’re way overdue on. Or we could create a new robot to go back in time and terminate James Watt and Henry Ford. Both solid options I think.

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.

Conservation group Keepers of the Athabasca is asking the Alberta government to review water usage rules for oilsands companies as the province struggles with unseasonably low water levels and raging wild fires.

Current rules set out under the Surface Water Quantity Management Framework allow two oilsands majors, Suncor and Syncrude, to continue water withdrawals for their operations even when water levels are extremely low. All other oilsands operators are required to abide by set limits.

Alberta is currently fighting 65 forest fires, some near oilsands projects, that are being fueled by extremely dry conditions. Twenty fires are currently considered “out of control.” This week the government initiated a province-wide fire ban. Water bombers are currently being used to suppress the flames.

“Due to little snowfall and almost no rain so far this spring, there has been little run off into the lakes, rivers and streams,” Jesse Cardinal from Keepers of the Athabasca said. “Add in the major forest fires actively being fought around the province, and water is simply in great demand at this time.”

Cardinal is asking the province if oilsands companies are required to slow production and water withdrawals from the Athabasca River in the face of low levels.

According to Simon Dyer from the Pembina Institute, Suncor and Syncrude insisted on the “seniority of their water licences” during development of the current water use rules.

The two companies argued “their reliance on old infrastructure should allow them to continue to withdraw water from the Lower Athabasca River, no matter how low the flow gets,” Dyer wrote in a letter to Alberta Environment.    

Dyer recommended the province implement a strong ecosystem limit that would place absolute restrictions — for all oilsands operators — on water withdrawal during low flow.

The provincial government ultimately declined to place a zero-withdrawal limit on the two companies and, according to Dyer, “continues to hold Syncrude and Suncor to a lower environmental standard…putting at risk the aquatic ecosystem of one of Alberta’s most ecologically and culturally important rivers.”

The Keepers of the Athabasca want to know if the NDP will consider revising water use rules in light of extreme conditions induced by climate change. The group argues current rules are based “on our once vibrant past when water was plentiful.”

The limits placed on water withdrawals were also designed to protect aboriginal use of the Athabasca River for navigation and traditional activities. But according to John Rigney, resident of Fort Chipewyan, the water levels are too low to support traditional hunting.

“Spring hunts have been very poor due to poor navigation on the river — we simply cannot get to our hunting spots because the water levels are so low in certain areas.”

Rigney added the remote community of Fort Chipewyan is also facing difficulty importing food and supplies.

“We are a community that needs our supplies barged in and flown in,” he said. “This time of year they’re mostly barged in, but that is not happening right now, as the barge can’t navigate, as water levels are so low.”

Image Credit: Twitter

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.