There’s no telling if the 220 square-kilometres of unlined tailings ponds in the Alberta oilsands are leaking contaminated waste into nearby water sources, according to the government of Canada.

That claim was made in an official response to NAFTA’s Commission for Environmental Cooperation despite strong scientific evidence suggesting a clear linkage between the oilsands’ 1.3 trillion litres of fluid tailings and the contamination of local waterways.

The response comes after a June 2017 submission by two environmental organizations and a Dene man alleging the federal government was failing to enforce a section of the Fisheries Act that prohibits the release of a “deleterious substance” into fish-frequented waters.

The NAFTA commission has 120 working days to determine whether the case has merit in light of Canada’s latest claims.

While Ottawa acknowledged in its response that nearby waters had a higher-than-average rate of contamination, it maintained that proving its source is “scientifically and technically challenging as methods for their analysis have not been available.”

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

Creating a sense doubt about the facts is a “flimsy” defence, Dale Marshall, national program manager with Environmental Defence, one of the environmental organizations bringing the case, told DeSmog Canada.

“The evidence is pretty strong that these are coming from tailings.”

Multiple Studies Conducted by Federal Scientists Detect Tailings Leakage

Many studies have indeed been done to assess the impacts of tailings waste on nearby waters.

An internal memo delivered to then-natural resources minister Joe Oliver and obtained in 2013 by investigative reporter Mike De Souza shows that federal scientists had discovered a clear presence of tailings toxins in local water sources.

The memo described that “the studies have, for the first time, detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in the groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond.”

These findings weren’t the first.

A 2008 study commissioned by Environmental Defence pegged the number of tailings leakage at 11 million litres a day, potentially reaching 72 million litres per day by 2012.

Then, in 2010, a journal article co-authored by limnologist David Schindler pointed to “tailings pond leakage or discharge as sources” of toxic pollutants in the Athabasca River. That was confirmed in 2014, again by federal scientists, with an entry in the journal Environmental Science and Technology that identified a “chemical fingerprint” distinct from natural rates.

“They found also not only are those tailings ponds leaking, but it looks like it is flowing pretty much from those tailings ponds, through the ground and into the Athabasca River,” oilsands advisory committee member and environmental scientist Bill Donahue told the CBC in an interview.

ICYMI: No Sure Plans, Funding for $51 Billion Cleanup and Rehabilitation of Oilsands Tailings Ponds

Marshall added oilsands companies documents have also indicated that tailings ponds leak and estimate the leakage expected to occur over time.

This has resulted in growing concerns in nearby Indigenous communities, including Fort Chipewyan where anomalous cancer rates have plagued the small community. But a lack of meaningful research has meant the community has been left without answers or recourse.

“The fact of the matter is that there are increasing levels of contaminants,” Melody Lepine, member of Mikisew Cree First Nation and co-chair of the Oil Sands Advisory Group, told DeSmog Canada. “They’re very dangerous.

“My community downstream has significant concerns about their health, the health of the ecosystem, impacts to birds and wildlife,” she added.

“It’s troubling to know after 50 years there’s still not enough data and research and management of tailings ponds.”

‘Precautionary Principle’ Means Government Must Act in Absence of Definite Proof

Environment and Climate Change Canada is committed to applying the “precautionary principle.”

As described by the federal department, that means that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

Those concerned about tailings leakage say the issue appears to be a perfect example of when that principle ought to be applied.

“Let’s just say the evidence is not as strong as it is,” Marshall said. “Even then — and I would call the contamination of Alberta’s rivers and increased cancer rates in downstream Indigenous communities serious environmental issues — the government’s stated principle is it’s not going to let uncertainty prevent them for acting to address those serious concerns.”

But the federal government has not taken that approach.

In 2013, Environment and Climate Change Canada decided there wasn’t enough evidence to prove violations of the “pollution prevention provisions” of the Fisheries Act and eliminated the on-site inspections of seven tailings ponds.

While inspectors still respond to specific complaints, they no longer proactively monitor the area for violations of the law.

In its recent response to NAFTA the government explained that “officers were not able to establish that a person deposited or permitted the deposit of a deleterious substance” due to an unavailability of scientific tools.

Canada Tells #NAFTA Leaky #Oilsands Tailings Ponds a ‘Challenge’ to Prove, Despite Existing Federal Study https://t.co/Qc1ewGdAGp #ableg #cdnpoli #cdnsci @envirodefence @NRDC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 17, 2017

Federal Government Ultimately Responsible for Violation of Federal Laws

Canada told the NAFTA environment committee the government is managing the tailings ponds in “a manner consistent with its domestic laws” and that it was justified in reallocating investigators to other issues deemed to have “a greater impact on the environment.

The federal submission claimed, “Canada’s enforcement actions are effective.”

The federal Liberal government pledged in its 2015 election platform to “treat our freshwater as a precious resource that deserves protection and careful stewardship.”

Lepine, who was raised in Fort Chipewyan, one of the communities most affected by oilsands developments, said she is disappointed the position of government on the tailings issue hasn’t changed — despite a change in leadership at both the provincial and federal levels.

ICYMI: Alberta Approves Suncor Tailings Plan Despite Reliance on ‘Unproven Technology’

“I was optimistic we had these changes in government,” Lepine said. “But really, nothing has changed since both of them have taken office. I’m not convinced they take this issue very seriously.”

Behind the scenes, a jurisdictional tug-of-war is at play, Lepine said. “They’re pointing fingers at each other.”

Yet enforcement of the Fisheries Act is ultimately the responsibility of the federal government.

If the province isn’t regulating in a way that prevents violations of federal laws, then it’s the responsibility of Ottawa to intervene, Marshall said.

“Yes, there are agreements made between the federal government and provinces. But that doesn’t mean the federal government can just wash its hand of it,” he said.

“[The federal government] is still the last stop between environmental degradation and the violation of federal laws.”

Environmental Tribunal Has 120 Days to Decide Next Steps

NAFTA’s Commission for Environmental Cooperation has 120 working days to review Canada’s submission and the merits of the original case.

Following that, the commission has 60 working days to schedule a vote between the environment ministers of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

If two-thirds of the countries vote to advance the case, a “factual record” of the issue will be prepared. A factual record has no binding legal consequences and would simply serve as a “name and shame” document on the public record.

Lepine said in the past Canada has taken action in response to international scrutiny.

On Wednesday, the International Union for Conservation of Nature declared the Wood Buffalo National Park — located just north of the oilsands — as one of the most threatened World Heritage Sites in North America.

“We wouldn’t have to do all these things if we thought Canada and Alberta were taking our concerns seriously,” Lepine said. “I’m hopefully that through this international forum they get that extra push. But we’ll see.”

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

For years environmental organizations have called on the federal government to do something about the leakage of  billions of litres of toxic chemicals from Alberta’s oilsands tailings ponds into the Athabasca River every year.

And for years they’ve been ignored — until now.

NAFTA’s Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is reviewing a submission by Environmental Defence, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Daniel T’seleie. Now, Canada must provide a response to the arguments made in the submission.

Here’s a primer on why this process matters.

So what’s going on with leaky tailings ponds?

Tailings ponds now cover more than 220 square kilometres of previously boreal forest around Fort McMurray, Alberta.

It’s been suspected for ages that these ponds have been seeping chemicals into nearby water systems — chemicals such as benzene, ammonia, cyanide and arsenic.

In 2013, investigative reporter Mike De Souza revealed via an access to information request that then-natural resource minister Joe Oliver had received a memo citing studies that “detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in the groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond.”

Only a year later, another federal study confirmed that toxic chemicals were reaching the Athabasca River.

In their submission to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation the three parties cite documented cases of contaminated tailings waste reaching (or projected to reach) waters in Jackpine Creek (from Shell), Beaver Creek (from Syncrude), McLean Creek (from Suncor) and the Athabasca River (from Suncor).

Such toxins can have calamitous effects on fish populations, which many local Indigenous peoples rely on for sustenance.

What’s the specific claim being made by the submission?

That Canada has failed to enforce subsection 36(3) of the federal Fisheries Act.

Specifically, that subsection reads (take a deep breath) that: “no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water.”

The case that’s being made is that ignoring leaking tailings waste is violating that subsection.

Interestingly, the submission notes that case law has emphasized that the water itself does not need to be made “deleterious” to fish, with the question being whether or not the substance itself is a “deleterious substance.” It might sound like a silly debate, but it could make or break a case.

“It’s pretty clear there’s been a lack of enforcement action both by Alberta and the Canadian government, which is outlined in our complaint to the CEC,” Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, told DeSmog Canada.

“We felt this was a way of compelling the Canadian government to respond to someone, and this would shine the light of day on this issue with how the Canadian response comes back.”

What You Need to Know About NAFTA’s Investigation into #Oilsands Tailings Leaks https://t.co/StUCzhybGO #environment #NAFTA #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/XyHSb2LsLT

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 23, 2017

Alright, so how does NAFTA have anything to do with this? Isn’t it a trade deal?

Indeed, it is: introduced in 1994, NAFTA was a groundbreaking regional trade agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

It was also very controversial.

Aaron Cosbey, senior associate at the International Institute for Sustainable Development and expert on environmental issues pertaining to international trade, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that there was a great deal of opposition to the deal at the time of signing, especially from the environmental community.

Much of the concern related to the expectation that a lot of low-wage work would be relocated to Mexico, with laxer environmental laws and regulations.

“Canadian NGOs were making the same argument: you can’t put in place this free trade agreement, which pits us against a country where the environmental law is not enforced,” Cosbey said.

“It’s not free trade if you do that.”

In response, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation was created as a separate treaty, signed at the same time as NAFTA. One of its key roles has been to serve as a tribunal of sorts for submitted infractions of environmental laws, with the worst “punishment” being the issuing of a non-binding “factual report” which serves as a “name and shame” document.

“It has no legal force beyond bringing a little welcome sunshine to the dark corners of non-enforcement,” Cosbey said.

In short, it was designed as a way for the three countries to have a common mechanism in place to file complaints about environmental practices. The submission about tailings leakage was the very first step in this process. The determination that the submission met the criteria for review on August 16 was the next. Now, Canada has to respond to the allegations.

So does this mean that Canada will be reprimanded?

Nope.

All that’s happened at this point is that the secretariat acknowledged the submission is valid. Canada has until Sept. 28 to officially respond, although it could request a 30-day extension for “exceptional circumstances.” The secretariat then figures out whether or not to proceed with the “factual record.” It can either decide that it’s satisfied with the response and won’t proceed further, or recommend the preparation of the “factual record.”

But here’s the thing.

In order for the factual record to actually be prepared, the environment ministers of the three countries have to agree by a two-thirds majority to it. In other words, two of the three NAFTA environment ministers have to say “yes,” otherwise it won’t proceed further.

That’s a very real possibility. Cosbey said there have been at least five instances in the past decade in which the secretariat recommended the preparation of the factual record, and the council of environment ministers shot it down. In total, there have been 30 submissions made in the last 10 years, with only three resulting in the creation of a factual record.

In fact, almost this exact same submission was shot down at the council level, despite a recommendation from staff at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

Canada’s initial argument against it was that there was an ongoing court case (which would mean that a factual report couldn’t have been completed). As it turned out, the court case wasn’t proceeding at the time. At the time, CBC reported that assistant deputy minister for Environment Canada, Dan McDougall, then declared that the commission had no jurisdiction to investigate domestic law, which appears to contradict the entire point of the commission.

McDougall still works as assistant deputy minister for Environment and Climate Change Canada.

What are the chances that Canada will fight this?

It’s impossible to say.

The country does have a long track record of opposing the process, with Canada blocking two other investigations in 2014 with Mexico’s support.

But we’re now living under what Cosbey described as a “supposedly now-environmentally friendly Liberal government.”

As noted by Gray, the federal government is embarking on a series of modernization processes, including of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Act and National Energy Board.

“This is a clear example of where the tarsands industry has been violating the existing legislation, even in its poor form,” Gray said. “I would expect that once it becomes clear that the facts around this case are not really able to be argued with that they would take some action.”

It will be a big deal whether the submission gets quashed or allowed. After all, the council has never refused to make the factual record public, meaning that we would be given a fascinating window into the argument made by Canada for or against acting on tailings leakage.

Gray said the factual record would help embarrass the government for inaction and encourage them to actually comply with their own legislation. Furthermore, it could be used in a legal case against the government if it refuses to act.

The Trudeau government has already indicated on multiple files it’s willing to break its promises. So we’ll have to wait and see. Plus, the re-negotiation of NAFTA itself will provide an additional window into their thought process.

What about the re-negotiation of NAFTA?

Well, the three countries don’t exactly like what they created with the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. It’s effectively embarrassing and inconvenient to them.

That’s why Cosbey would “bet a lot of money” that the ongoing re-negotiation of NAFTA will involve shutting down the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, terminating the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and putting all provisions within NAFTA itself.

“I can guarantee you we’re not going to see anything as strong as this,” he said. “Guaranteed. We’re taking steps backwards here.”

And as you might have gathered, the current system isn’t even particularly strong. Compare it to, say, the framework in the European Union, which results in binding directives from the European Court of Justice to fall in line with the rules.

Recent regional trade agreements like CETA and TPP have involved “token nods” to the system that NAFTA currently uses, but are much weaker provisions in practice.

So this may be one of the last opportunities that a concerned individual or organization has the chance to challenge the country in this manner.

“It’s possible,” Gray concluded. “I don’t know if anyone knows the timelines of the NAFTA renegotiations. But I’m hopeful the Canadian government would be looking to improve environmental protections, not erode them.”

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.

For years, Alberta’s government has reassured the public that it has a plan to ensure the oilsands’ 1.2 trillion litres of hazardous tailings are permanently dealt with after mines shut down.

That assertion is becoming less convincing by the day.

Industry still hasn’t decided on a viable long-term storage technology to begin testing. The fund to cover tailings liabilities in case of bankruptcy is arguably extremely underfunded. And there are concerns from the likes of the Pembina Institute that the future costs for tailings treatment will be far greater than anticipated.

Martin Olszynski, assistant professor in law at University of Calgary, told DeSmog Canada such questions simply can’t be left unanswered.

“It would the height of unfairness if at the end of all this massive profit and wealth generation, Albertans were left on the hook for what will be landscape-sized disturbances that are potentially very harmful and hazardous to humans and wildlife,” he said.

Oilsands Tailings Plans Nonexistent

The history of tailings regulations is a short one in the province: there simply hasn’t been anything binding. Toxic tailings have been allowed to expand for decades without any real constraints. The last attempt by the province’s energy regulator to require companies “to minimize and eventually eliminate long-term storage of fluid tailings in the reclamation landscape” completely failed.

Every single company breached their own targets.

Directive 085, introduced by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) in July 2016, is intended to rectify that.

On March 17, the AER somewhat surprisingly rejected the first tailings management plan that was submitted under the new rules by oilsands giant Suncor for a series of reasons, including its uncertain timelines and reliance on the “unproven technology” of end pit lakes or water capping (the practice of sealing fine tailings under freshwater with the expectation ponds will evolve into healthy aquatic ecosystems).

“What this most recent rejection of Suncor’s proposal suggests to me is they haven’t done the work, and they’re not yet doing the work,” Olszynski says.

“And they need to do the work.”

No Definite Plan A and Definitely No Plan B For #Oilsands’ Tailings https://t.co/scnvuXz9OV #ableg #cdnpoli #YEG #YYC #oilandgas

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 21, 2017

Provincial Auditor General Warned of Risk of Oil Price Drop

In July 2015, provincial auditor general Merwan Saher issued a harsh indictment of the fund intended to ensure that Albertans won’t be on the hook for reclamation expenses when oilsands and coal mines shut down.

At the time, only $1.57 billion was held as security deposits in the Mine Financial Security Program for all of Alberta’s reclamation liabilities, worth an estimated $20.8 billion.

As of September 2016 that total is now $1.38 billion with oilsands companies responsible for $940 million of the total. The other $19 billion or so is expected to be paid by companies in the last 15 years of a project's life, with reserves effectively serving as collateral — but that's a risky approach, especially with declining oil prices.

There is a “significant risk that asset values…are overstated,” Saher said..

“If an abrupt financial and operational decline were to occur in the oilsands sector,” wrote the auditor general., “It would likely be difficult for an oilsands mine operator to provide this security even if the need for the security was identified through the program.”

Oilsands Accounting Expert Says Situation Is “Major Concern”

That very thing has happened.

Thomas Schneider, assistant accounting professor at Ryerson University who has written extensively on oilsands liabilities, said in an interview that “it’s a major concern” given the recent decline in asset values.

“The main asset securing the liabilities now as per the government and people of Alberta — and ultimately Canada I guess as I don’t know who’s going to have to pay for it if it doesn’t get cleaned up — are supposedly the assets in the ground,” he told DeSmog Canada. “That’s where it stands right now.”

The province’s $20.8 billion estimated liability is already based on shaky market grounds; the asset-to-liability approach considers “proven” (90 per cent likely to be commercially viable) and “probable” (only 50 per cent likely to be commercially viable) reserves as equally valuable, allowing companies to avoid putting in additional securities to the fund so long as assets are assessed at three times that of liabilities.

It’s a potentially troubling prospect in the era of massive write-downs of reserves by the likes of ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

Schneider says at this point in time, the government is supposed to re-evaluate the asset-to-liability ratio and require companies to cover off any missing securities with letters of credit or other financial instruments.

A government spokesperson didn’t respond to a question about whether the government has taken a recent look at the ratio.

No Definite Plan A and Definitely No Plan B For Oilsands’ Tailings

Companies and industry groups are putting a lot of work into developing new technologies to deal with tailings.

Nina Lothian, senior analyst at Pembina, said in an interview with DeSmog that there are pros and cons to every tailings technology — end pit lakes, centrifuges, atmospheric fines drying, consolidated tailings — with no clear best choice. Based on the recent rejection of Suncor’s plan, it’s clear the AER is expecting more from companies.

However, there’s the obvious related problem of if those plans fail.

The AER has established an unfortunate reputation in some circles for failing to implement required monitoring and enforcement actions to ensure compliance when it comes to pipeline safety and orphaned wells.

Lothian says that end pit lakes are considered a bit of a “silver bullet” by industry.

The Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, a joint effort by 13 companies, has long planned to build a Demonstration Pit Lakes Project, made up of over a dozen test water bodies and based off of learnings from Syncrude’s Base Mine Lake. The alliance’s website still notes that “phase one of the project could move to construction with potential operation by 2017.” However, when contacted by DeSmog, a spokesperson was unable to provide any information on the status of the Demonstration Pit Lakes Project.

Olszynski says that it will likely require 15 years of monitoring data to know if any particular plan worked. He says that as a result, we wouldn’t have solid results until 2032. But the alliance hasn’t even started building the project.

“For me, the big problem here is we’re well into 2017 at this point, we’re staring down the productive life of some of these sites, and we do not yet have a proven tailings mitigation technology,” he says.

Recent Mining Disasters and Abandonments Point to Potential Dangers

As to whether or not security deposits are meant to include the treatment of tailings, Lothian says Pembina has had no success in answering that question.

Neither Alberta Environment and Parks or the AER have provided clear responses to Pembina. Lothian says that submissions from companies under the Mine Financial Security Program include related reclamation costs like land contouring and revegetation, but there’s no indication of whether funds have been set aside explicitly for tailings treatment.

“We know from all this work with the tailings management plans how many billions of dollars are associated with the treatment side of things,” she says.

In 2011, University of Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach wrote in an Alberta Oil article: “As long as companies expect to pay the full costs of reclamation, there’s no reason to expect that deferring environmental security payments will appreciably increase investment.”

In other words, the “asset-to-liability approach” might not even have notably increased investments, and instead exposed Albertans to serious costs down the road if companies go bankrupt.

That’s assuming companies expect to pay the full costs of reclamation.

There have been numerous examples in recent years that indicate mining companies can get away without fines or charges for catastrophic tailings breaches, most notably the Mount Polley mine disaster in B.C. and Peabody bankruptcy in the U.S. (the latter of which left around $2 billion in unfunded liabilities).

Provincial Regulator Has Variety of Options to Pursue, Critics Say

But regulators like the AER could take a different approach to avoid such financial disasters.

That could include providing clarity around what the Mine Financial Security Program actually covers, revoking leases for non-compliance, update calculations to acknowledge the distinction between “proven” and “probable reserves” and tap into financial instruments such as letters of credit which Olszynski describes as “bankrupt-proof.”

It would ultimately be up to the AER as an independent agency to craft new calculations for required security deposits or improve communication of the scope of the Mine Financial Security Program. But such shifts would likely require pressure from the government.

In fact, Premier Rachel Notley appeared reasonably convinced of that fact when serving as opposition environment critic, asking during Question Period in 2010: “will this government commit to eliminate the existing lakes of poisonous sludge within 20 years and to exercise all authority necessary to make sure it happens?”

However, since forming government the Alberta NDP has said little publicly about tailings management that served as contrast to previous decisions; Environment Minister Shannon Phillips responded to the 2015 report by the auditor general by stating: “We need to analyze whether the asset calculation needs to be changed. We need to update this security program and conduct that detailed risk analysis.”

Nothing appears to have been changed or updated since then.

“This is a really common strategy, where industry just kicks the can down the road over and over again until they are able to get out of cleaning up the waste themselves at the end of operations,” said Jodi McNeill, policy analyst, from the Pembina Institute, in a recent webinar.

“There’s a lot of reason for us to be very concerned.”

Image: Alberta oilsands tailings pond. Photo: Alex MacLean 

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.

Knowledge gaps about the behaviour of diluted bitumen when it is spilled into saltwater and lack of information about how to deal with multiple problems that can result from extracting and transporting bitumen from the Alberta oilsands, make it impossible for government or industry to come up with effective policies to deal with a disaster, says a newly published research paper, Oilsands and the Marine Environment.

The study by ecologists from Simon Fraser, Stanford, Oregon State and Northern Arizona universities, who scrutinized more than 9,000 research papers, concludes that officials should collect more information about the environmental effects of bitumen before setting regulations.

“There just isn’t enough science in the public eye to answer questions about the risk bitumen poses to the ocean,” said lead author Stephanie Green, a Banting postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Ocean Solutions at Stanford University.

“We found almost no research about bitumen’s effects on marine species,” she said.

As controversy continues to swirl around the federal government’s approval of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion and as president-elect Donald Trump prepares to overhaul energy and environmental regulations and reopen the Keystone XL pipeline application, the lack of credible information highlights policy flaws, the researchers said.

“In this context, policymakers risk confusing the lack of evidence for particular environmental effects with evidence that there is no risk,” Green said.

Out of all the studies examined, only two addressed the toxicity of bitumen in the ocean, said coauthor Thomas Sisk of Northern Arizona University.

“We don’t even know for certain whether this form of petroleum will float or sink during an ocean spill,” he said.

Bitumen is the consistency of peanut butter when extracted from the oilsands and, as it is too thick to flow through a pipe, it is diluted with chemicals or lighter petroleum products such as natural gas concentrate, refined naptha or synthetic crude oil to make it flow. The diluted product is commonly known as dilbit.

However, a major block to coming up with spill responses or figuring out the exact behaviour of dilbit in the ocean is that there are dozens of different formulas and the chemical diluent mix is treated as a trade secret by oil companies.

“A crucial first step in filling this gap is a requirement that the chemical composition of oilsands products be made available for scientific study and impact assessment,” the study recommends.

Secrecy Around Composition of Oilsands Dilbit Makes Effective Spill Response, Research Impossible: New Study https://t.co/8p5OUwjDLe #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 24, 2016

The paper, which was published this week in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, found that policy flaws include a failure to adequately address carbon emissions or the cumulative effects of multiple projects.

The scientist found there are 15 “pathways” through which the extraction and transportation of oilsands bitumen can negatively affect oceans.

Impacts include problems resulting from a spill, the effect of increased tanker traffic on marine animals and climate change effects such as increasing ocean acidity and temperature and rapid sea-level rise, says the study.

However, there are few scientific studies looking at the effect of two or more of the impacts arising simultaneously.

“Projects should not be considered in isolation and multiple types of impacts need to be considered simultaneously. Everything is connected,” said co-author Wendy Palen of Simon Fraser University.

The gaps in information on multiple stressors are particularly evident on a regional basis for eelgrass and kelp forest systems, the study says.

“Accounting for the effects of multiple projects, concurrently, in scientific assessments and planning processes will lead to more accurate assessments of oil sands contributions to cumulative effects on resources that are in the footprint of multiple industries,” it recommends.

Expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Burnaby will see the capacity of the pipeline triple to 890,000 barrels a day, compared to the current capacity of 300,000 barrels a day. The expansion will also mean the number of tankers, travelling through the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait, will increase to 34 a month from five a month.

The BC Liberal government has set five conditions for approving the pipeline expansion, but is showing every sign that it will get a green light, while the NDP and Green Party oppose it.

Green Party leader Andrew Weaver claims his party is the only one to consistently oppose the pipeline.

“You can’t clean up dilbit, so we should ban heavy oil tankers on the coast,” he said categorically.

Image credit: TransCanada

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.

At a speech given to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he intends to work with President-elect Donald Trump to approve the northern leg of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. 

The speech comes as Trump revealed in a recent interview with Fox News that one of the first things he intends to do in office is grant permits for both Keystone XL and the perhaps equally controversial Dakota Access pipeline. Because Keystone XL North crosses the U.S.-Canada border, current processes require it to obtain a presidential permit from the U.S. Department of State, which the Obama administration has denied.

The next State Department, however, could be led by the recently retired CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, who was just nominated to be U.S. Secretary of State and soon will face a Senate hearing and vote. Potentially complicating this situation is the fact that Exxon holds substantial interest in both tar sands projects and companies, which stand to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline bringing this carbon-intensive crude oil across the border.

Exxon, along with its subsidiary Imperial Oil, owns both the Kearl Oil Sands Project and Cold Lake tar sands production facilities, and a 25 percent stake in the tar sands production company Syncrude.

According to Bloomberg, Trump's team has shown interest in getting rid of the Executive Order which created the presidential permit process altogether, which President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry used in November 2015 to axe the pipeline. 

On the campaign trail and during his post-election "Victory Tour," Trump has pledged to rescind all of Obama's Executive Orders. Unsurprisingly, Tillerson has stated his support for Keystone XL, as well.

As reported in a recent investigation by InsideClimate News, nearly a third of Exxon's global reserves is situated in Alberta's tar sands, an oil patch which covers about 55,000 square miles, or roughly the size of New York state. Alberta's tar sands represent the third largest oil reserves on the planet.

Image Credit: InsideClimate News

Processing and producing tar sands crude emits roughly 17 percent more carbon into the atmosphere than conventional crude oil, according to State Department figures cited by InsideClimate News. Exxon's website says that by 2040 the company will provide a quarter of the oil for the Americas via the tar sands.

It remains unclear what Tillerson will do pertaining to the 1.7 million shares of Exxon stock which will be deferred to him — "unvested," in corporate lingo — over the next decade or so. Some industry experts have called for him to either receive his stock payments immediately or divest completely in order to avoid the associated conflict of interest as Secretary of State.

"Keystone XL Clone"

Keystone XL North links Alberta's massive tar sands reserves to the oil hub mecca of Cushing, Oklahoma. From there, it connects with the southern leg of Keystone XL — now known as the Gulf Coast Pipeline — which carries the diluted bitumen (or "dilbit," the result of tar sands oil being mixed with lighter petroleum products to allow it to flow more easily) to Gulf coast refinery markets. 

Trudeau also recently gave a permit to the oil company Enbridge for its Line 3 Pipeline, which likewise crosses the U.S.-Canada border. That line to the Great Lakes connects to what DeSmog has called the broader "Keystone XL Clone" pipeline system, which like the Keystone Pipeline System, links Alberta's tar sands to Gulf Coast refinery markets. 

The southernmost piece of this Keystone XL Clone system, the Seaway Pipeline, which runs from Cushing to Gulf Coast refineries, had a spill in late October.

"Bring It On"

Even with the deck now stacked against those who have spent years fighting against Keystone XL, at least one environmental group responded with a simple message: "Bring it on."

"Keystone XL would imperil countless communities as well as our climate, and President Obama was absolutely right in finally rejecting it last year," Oil Change International's David Turnbull told the publication Common Dreams. "The movement to stop Keystone is one of the most inspiring and powerful collections of landowners, ranchers, Native Americans, and concerned citizens all across the county that we've ever seen. If Trump tries [to] undo President Obama's wise decision, this movement won't be standing idly by. In other words: Bring it on."

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

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.

Norwegian oil major Statoil will be pulling out of its Canadian oilsands project after nearly a decade with an expected loss of at least USD$500 million.

In yet another sign that Canada’s oilsands – one of the most polluting fossil fuel projects on the planet – is becoming increasingly costly, Lars Christian Bacher, Statoil’s executive vice-president for international development and production, said in a statement: “This transaction corresponds with Statoil’s strategy of portfolio optimisation to enhance financial flexibility and focus capital on core activities globally.”

The 14 December announcement comes just weeks after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved the controversial Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline in a move to facilitate growth in the oilsands and create jobs.

The international energy giant will sell all of its oilsands assets to the mid-sized Alberta-based Athabasca Oil Corp effective 1 January 2017 in a deal that could produce about 80,000 barrels of oil a day with reserves expected to last up to 70 years. It is estimated to be worth up to CAD$832 million. The deal will also see Statoil retain a stake of just under 20 percent in Athabasca.

Statoil was one of 13 companies operating in the oilsands that had signed a long-term contract with Texas-based pipeline operator Kinder Morgan to ship oil via the Trans Mountain pipeline. However, it is now unclear what will happen with its contract, the National Observer has reported. According to Statoil Athabasca will have the option to enter the agreement.

The move is the latest in a string of losses for oilsands operators since global oil prices began to plummet in 2014, triggering other European companies such as Shell and Total to pull out of projects and resulting in tens of thousands of jobs being lost across Alberta.

And while Trudeau has said recently that tar sands and pipeline expansion will be “integral” to the country’s climate plans, Statoil’s head of sustainability, Bjorn Otto Sverdrup, tweeted on the day of the company’s announcement that Statoil’s exit from the oilsands “bends our cost and emission curves. Building resilience.”  

Today we announced @Statoil exit of oil sands which bends our cost and emission curves. Building resilience @CFigueres @IEABirol @topnigel https://t.co/WvvZYoN0q3

— Bjørn Otto Sverdrup (@BSverdrup) December 15, 2016

Photo: Lawrence Sauter via Statoil

[block:block=109]

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.

Dr. Robin Crump had a front row seat to one of the world’s worst oil spills.

Twenty years ago, on Feb. 15, 1996, the Sea Empress oil tanker ran aground on mid-channel rocks in Pembrokeshire Coast National Park in Wales.

Over the course of the following week, the Sea Empress spilled almost 18 million gallons — 80 million litres — of crude oil, making it Britain’s third largest oil spill and the world’s 12th largest at the time.

Beaches were coated in a thick brown chocolate mousse of petroleum. Thousands of birds and other creatures perished. The rare species, Asterina Phylactica, first discovered by Dr. Crump, was reduced to a handful of individuals. Thanks in large part to Crump’s efforts, the species was well on the road to recovery within six months.

A temporary fishing ban was installed due to the unknown effects of toxic poisoning. This of course lead to job losses in the industry with some fishing companies reporting the impacts took up to six years to recover from.

Sea Empress oil spill, 1996. Photo: Wales Online

Cleanup crews work to contain oil on the beach. Photo: Wales Online

“There are huge problems with pipelines in remote locations,” says Crump, a retired biologist.

I am here on the coast of Wales at the invitation of the British artist, Abigail Sidebotham, who is curating a year-long project commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Sea Empress oil spill.

I have come to Pembrokeshire to give a presentation on Canada’s oilsands, but more importantly, I am here to try and learn from the experience of the oil spill here and gain a sense of what increased tanker traffic could mean for Canada’s coastal ecology and economy.

Much like parts of Canada’s east and west coasts, there is a tension between the scenic beauty and ecology — the basis of a successful tourism and fishing economy — and the demands of industry.

An oil tanker approaches the entrance to Milford Haven where the Sea Empress ran aground. The marker in the foreground indicates the submerged rocks which caused the accident. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

Oil tanker entering Milford Haven with the Valero oil refinery in the background. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

The beach and dunes at Freshwater West. Located very close to the scenes of the spill, this was one of the hardest hit beaches. Fans of the Harry Potter movies may also recognize it has the scene “Shell Cottage” and Dobby’s death and burial. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

A 2015 report from Pembrokeshire County Council states that the region’s strengths include renewable energy, sustainable tourism and the rural economy.

But the deep-water port of Milford Haven, scene of the Sea Empress oil spill, hosts an oil refinery (which was the destination of the Sea Empress, two liquefied natural gas plants, a gas-fired power station and a high-voltage national grid transmission line, which could service the region’s burgeoning wind, tidal, wave and solar energy industries.)

A section of Milford Haven and the Valero oil refinery — formerly Texaco — which was the destination of the Sea Empress. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

Comparisons to the Canadian ports of Kitimat, St. John, Burnaby and Prince Rupert spring to mind when looking at the economic potential and challenges of Pembrokeshire.

When I ask Crump specifically about Canada’s current debate regarding oilsands pipelines and tanker traffic, he responds, “It depends how much you value your wildlife, as a country, as a people and as a government.”

Oil-Covered Hail

Retired farmer and author of  “Farming for Better Profitability,” John Davies, had a farm eleven miles — 18 kilometres — inland at the time of the Sea Empress oil spill.

Sitting in the kitchen of his cottage, he reflects on the events that day.

Shortly after the spill, as the oil was coming ashore, a strong storm and high winds caused a deluge of black hail stones leaving a 2.5 inch deposit on Davies’ fields and porch.

He filled a three-gallon bucket with the hail stones. A few hours later, the hail had melted, but left behind a gallon of thick black and yellow oil.

It was “a phenomenon I had never seen before and never want to see again,” Davies said.

There were big agricultural losses after the Sea Empress spill. The chemical dispersants that were used at sea after the oil spill damaged about 15 square miles of crops, as they were blown onto the land. Like Davies, other farmers’ fields were covered with oil. This had grave results, as some drinking water was contaminated and may have caused health problems in cattle and sheep.

Although an oil spill is a dramatic and (thankfully) rare event, I am reminded of the research by retired University of Alberta professor David Schindler. Schindler found that the greatest concentrations of toxic contaminants downstream from the tar sands occurred during the spring thaw, indicating that the toxins spewing from the smokestacks and rising from the tailings ponds concentrated in the atmosphere and rained back down on us as precipitation.

This sobering thought came to mind several times as I photographed the juxtaposition of the Valero oil refinery with the agricultural land that surrounds it.

Valero oil refinery and surrounding agricultural land. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

During my stay in Pembrokeshire, I was based in the picturesque coastal village of Tenby, located along a 186-mile coastal path, regularly rated among the planet’s Top 10 walks.

South Beach and the picturesque town of Tenby as seen from a section of the Pembrokeshire Coast Path. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

Tenby. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

St. Catherine’s Island along the shore of Tenby. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

The path passes vast sand beaches, dramatic bluffs, intimate coves, sea stacks and pastoral grazing fields — interrupted every few miles by charming villages with castles, quaint inns and pubs.

It’s little wonder that National Geographic named Tenby the second best coastal destination in the world.

A small section of the Pembrokeshire Coast Path. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

A section of the rugged coastline along the Pembrokeshire Coast Path. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

There I met with Chris Osbourne, owner and manager of the Fourcroft Hotel.

He recalled the smell of oil that permeated the community for several hours after the Sea Empress spill as the community realized that not only their quality of life was threatened, but so were their businesses.

The area was cosmetically cleaned up fairly quickly, but there were still significant losses.

“Many coach trips and individuals canceled” Osbourne said, adding he and others “lost a lot of money.”

Yet it could have been far, far worse.

The vast majority of the 72,000 tonnes of crude that spilled was very thin North Sea crude. Only about 480 tonnes of heavier crude was spilled — that’s the kind of stuff that would likely sink to the sea bed and smother it, potentially inflicting damage for up to a hundred years or more, biologist Crump said.

Crude produced in the Alberta oilsands, called bitumen, is among the heaviest forms of oil.

The Alberta tar sands, also call oilsands. Multiple pipeline proposals to tidewater, and the recent election of Donald Trump who supports the proposed Keystone pipeline, make tar sands tankers of the coasts of Canada and Europe an increasingly likely scenario in the near future. Photo: Garth Lenz

Cut with highly toxic natural gas condensate, the type of bitumen Canada wants to export would very likely sink, making it next to impossible to clean up. Recent research by Canadian and U.S. scientists found there are major knowledge gaps when it comes to the effects of bitumen on marine environments.

“If mistakes happen, and mistakes do happen, the consequences can be catastrophic,” Osbourne said.

Keep in mind that modern super tankers can have greater than triple the carrying capacity of the Sea Empress.

Canada’s coastal communities are far more dependent on the fishing industry than Wales. Wildlife populations are far greater, particularly on the West Coast. And the region is much more remote, making a large-scale clean up effort that much more difficult.

While I was in Wales, I learned about the Nathan E. Stewart, the tug that had run aground and sunk in the Great Bear Rainforest, discharging an estimated 100,000 litres of diesel. Three weeks later, the relatively small spill still had not been contained, devastating the Heiltsuk Nation.

Mistakes do indeed happen. Lead image: An oil tanker traverses Milford Haven. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog

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

On Nov. 29, the federal government granted conditional approvals for the twinning of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline replacement project.

If built, the two pipelines will add just over one million barrels per day of export capacity from Alberta’s oilsands. Expectedly, many Canadians cried climate foul.

And, equally as predictably, there’s been a litany of arguments criticizing people for protesting the approvals.

The University of Calgary’s Trevor Tombe penned a thoughtful essay for Maclean’s contending that “blocking pipelines achieve less emissions reductions, at substantially greater cost, than the most efficient approach of pricing carbon.” In another vein, former Alberta Oil Magazine editor Max Fawcett suggested in an op-ed for Vancouver Is Awesome that “if you oppose the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, you’re effectively being an environmental NIMBY.”

It’s true not all anti-pipeline rhetoric gets the numbers right, especially when it comes to the slippery practice of predicting emissions growth.

There’s no guarantee, for instance, that the two pipelines will generate 23 and 28 megatonnes (Mt) of new emissions as suggested by some. There’s also no guarantee oil in the expanded pipeline network won’t simply displace oil from rail transport. So when it comes to emissions counting, the incremental impact of these projects on overall emissions is hard to pinpoint.

But even despite those vagaries, Canadians concerned about climate change, or concerned about our international climate commitments, have some very legitimate reasons to protest the federal approvals.

Paris Agreement Requires Canada To Cut 291 Megatonnes of Emissions by 2030

Of course, that’s assuming Canada intends to honour international climate commitments. Some Canadians might even oppose those commitments — but that’s a very different story.

Under the Paris Agreement, Canada committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, which would drop the total to 524 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent a year.

The government also loosely committed to the “high ambition” goal of keeping temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, which would require a reduction to 400 Mt by 2030. In addition the federal government committed to an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, a goal that requires dropping emissions all the way down to 150 Mt per year.

So, how do new pipelines and the oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, fit into those promises?

In its submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the National Energy Board (NEB) estimates Canada’s emissions will hit 814 Mt per year by 2030. The oilsands are predicted to account for 115 Mt of that, up 43 per cent from 70 Mt in 2015.

Those numbers are “baked in” to the NEB’s 2030 estimates according to Erin Flanagan, federal policy director for the Pembina Institute.

“The reference case is bullish on fossil fuel development,” Flanagan says. “These numbers are not consistent with the Paris Agreement. These are not numbers that are aligned with Canada doing its fair share to address global climate change.”

“That’s the unfortunate reality of the NEB reference case,” she says.

“That’s why people call it a ‘coin toss on the climate.’ It’s not a Paris Agreement-aligned reference case.”

Oilsands to Expand with Global Oil Price Rebound

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers anticipates 3.7 million barrels per day of oilsands production by 2030, up from 2.4 million barrels per day in 2015.

(A July 2015 report by the Canadian Energy Research Institute pegged the 2030 higher, at 4.3 million barrels.)

Right now, oilsands producers aren’t moving enough oil to fill Canada’s pipelines. There’s currently 400,000 bpd of spare capacity in the pipeline network.

But that surplus could be rapidly filled with a recovery in global oil prices.

Brent oil prices are currently hovering around $53/barrel USD. In October, the National Energy Board predicted that Brent oil prices will hit $68/barrel USD by 2020, rising to $90/barrel USD in 2040.

But prices aren’t the only factor determining oilsands production in Alberta.

As part of Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan, the provincial government introduced a 100 Mt cap on oilsands emissions. If per-barrel intensity remains the same, that cap would allow for about 3.4 million barrels per day of oilsands production, which could be accommodated via existing pipeline and rail networks with room for maintenance and outages.

But industry is planning for much more production than that. The National Energy Board is forecasting for 4.3 million barrels per day by 2040, an almost 80 per cent increase from 2015.

That’s where new pipelines such as Trans Mountain and Line 3 come in, providing a combined one million barrels in additional capacity to move product to heavy oil refineries in California and the Gulf Coast.

Andrew Leach, energy economist at the University of Alberta and former chair of the Alberta Climate Change Advisory Panel, tweeted back in April: “System will face constraints in the future, which is key to case for new pipes.”

The federal government has also reiterated its support for TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, a project President-elect Donald Trump intends to approve, providing he can negotiate more profits for the U.S.

Keystone would add 830,000 barrels per day to the network, bringing the total pipeline capacity to 4.2 million barrels per day by 2030, exceeding the 3.7 million barrels per day of production.

An additional 1.1 million barrels of transport capacity will be brought online if the TransCanada Energy East pipeline is approved and another 400,000 barrels if the Enbridge Mainline expansion project proceeds (which is uncertain due to the potential approval of the Keystone XL).

These pipeline systems represent a significant potential to scale up production in the oilsands. So what does that actually mean for emissions?

Oilsands Would Account for Nearly 20 Per Cent of Allowable Emissions by 2030

Per-barrel emissions in the oilsands are high and getting higher by the year.

Between 2004 and 2014, per barrel emissions grew by 25 per cent, increasing from 50 to 63 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent per barrel. Most future growth in the oilsands will occur via in-situ extraction, which emits about 1.5 times the greenhouse gases than open-pit mining due to the use of natural gas to create steam.

Industry has hyped up the possibility of using new processes to cut in-situ emissions, but the technology is not expected to come into play for years.

As mentioned above the National Energy Board anticipates Alberta’s 100 Mt oilsands cap will be breached — reaching a total of 115 Mt — before 2030 (assuming, of course, that the cap isn’t simply tossed out by a new government before then.)

Suppose industry miraculously finds a way to cut per-barrel emissions by eight per cent, allowing producers to grow oilsands production to 3.7 million barrels per day — as projected by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers — while remaining within the 100 Mt cap.

David Hughes, expert on unconventional fuels and author of multiple reports for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, calculates that if industry produces up to the 100 Mt cap (a 43 per cent increase in production), oilsands emissions will take up a whopping 19 per cent of Canada’s entire allowable 2030 emissions budget.

“Saying that we’re going to grow oilsands by 43 per cent means our Paris Agreements are a bit Orwellian for me,” Hughes told DeSmog Canada.

“Even if the oilsands didn’t grow, it’s going to be extremely difficult [to meet our targets] given the time that’s left.”

In addition to oil pipeline approvals, Trudeau has also granted federal permits for major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in B.C. The Pacific Northwest LNG terminal is projected to be Canada’s single largest point source of emissions (11.5 to 14 Mt), producing more carbon pollution than even the giant Syncrude oilsands mine (12.5 Mt).

Assuming only one LNG export terminal is constructed in B.C., increasing oilsands emissions to 100 Mt would require non-oil and gas sectors — i.e. the rest of Canada — to contract by 47 per cent in emissions intensity in order for Canada to meet its climate target.

Federal Climate Policies Uncertain and Insufficient

So is that major reduction in non-oil and gas sectors going to happen?

The federal government insists that a potential increase in oilsands’ emissions will be negated by ‘upcoming climate policies.’

Problem is, no one as of yet knows what those supposed ‘upcoming’ policies are. The Prime Minister will meet with premiers at at First Ministers’ Meeting on December 9 to discuss the details of a much-anticipated pan-Canadian framework for climate action.

Stephen Guilbeault, executive director with Equiterre, said he hopes the government will finally release its climate “balance sheet” at the meeting.

“Without a balance sheet there is no way of knowing if this plan is delivering on what it says it does. What is enabling Canada’s emissions to go down? Why are they going up? To be able to adjust that plan over time and to have a genuine understanding and reassurance that we do have a plan that will put us on a path towards emissions reduction is needed for credibility,” Guilbeault says.

“Without the plusses and minuses it’s impossible for us to say whether premiers and the Prime Minister have delivered on that plan.”

He added the 2030 climate target gets a lot of attention but is by no means the end point for Canada’s climate commitments.

“Really 2030 isn’t the end. We have to totally or almost totally decarbonize our economy.”

Adam Scott, senior campaigner at Oil Change International, told DeSmog Canada that plan remains a mystery.

“The federal government has not demonstrated publicly in any way how their plan adds up,” he says.

Erin Flanagan from the Pembina Institute said nearly 100 Mt worth of emissions reductions can be pieced together from various mitigation measures: 30 Mt from a new clean fuel standard, 20 Mt from methane reductions, 18 Mt from the $50/tonne carbon price, 15 Mt from the coal phaseout and eight Mt from hydrofluorocarbon gas regulations.

But most of the meaningful emissions reductions are coming from the provinces, not federal leadership.

When it comes to phasing out coal, for example, only five Mt of emissions reductions will specifically occur due to federal policy (a number which Hughes describes as “absolutely trivial” compared to the anticipated gap from the 2030 target). Alberta and Ontario will take credit for the lion’s share of coal-related reductions.

But despite those gains made at the provincial level, continued oil and gas development, as anticipated by the NEB, means Canada’s emissions will only be reduced to around 715 Mt by 2030.

Under the Paris Agreement, Canada committed to a target of 524 Mt by 2030, leaving a gap of 191 Mt.

“That is a very different than the reality of of Canada living up to the Paris Agreement,” Flanagan says. “To meet that we need to fuel switch our entire economy. We need to run our homes and lives on clean electricity.”

Liberals Have Already Flip Flopped on Key Election Issues

Flanagan says the federal government has an excellent opportunity to present an updated plan at the First Ministers’ Meeting that details all sources of emissions, current and proposed policies, how those policies will reduce emissions and what further measures will be taken to reach the 2030 target.

But the federal Liberals have established quite the track record as of late for ignoring reports and findings, resulting in major flip flops on issues from electoral reform to marijuana legalization.

When it comes to pipelines specifically, cabinet seemed to totally disregard the six questions posted to it by its ad-hoc environmental review panel that asked the federal government how it intends to build new pipelines as well as fulfill its climate commitments.

So what the federal government intends to do nationally to reduce emissions in light of anticipated oilsands production increases is anyone’s guess.

The Liberals may be plan on allowing 115 Mt of oilsands emissions while attempting (somehow) to cut total emissions to 524 Mt by 2030.

Or perhaps they’re planning to dramatically increase carbon pricing to the $150/tonne or $200/tonne range experts say is necessary to bring emissions in line with national climate targets.

At this stage, we simply don’t know.

‘This Takes Us Completely In the Opposite Direction’

Whatever the federal government’s plan, they have plenty to do to show their work.

Sure, in the meantime uncertain, external forces could redefine the playing field.

Global oil prices may never bounce back, resulting in a natural slowdown of oilsands expansion as president-elect Trump expands U.S. domestic production.

Or, amazing new emissions-reducing technologies may be developed in the next year or two, allowing for 4.3 million barrels per day to be developed in 2030 without seriously undermining climate commitments.

The Trans Mountain and Line 3 pipelines may even be constructed but barely used, failing to deliver on promises made to company shareholders.

But one thing is certain: the urgency of the climate crisis will not wane. The power of the oil and gas lobby in Canada isn’t likely to subside and the challenge of increasing emissions from the oilsands while meeting our climate commitments isn’t likely to resolve itself.

“I don’t think it’s possible for Canada to meet its targets if it allows the tarsands expansion that this pipeline will facilitate,” Scott concludes.

“We know Canada’s target is already super weak. They’re really struggling to find all the pieces that would get them to their target.

Building new pipelines, Scott said, “takes us completely in the opposite direction.”

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

For years, the Canadian public has been besieged with the same message: Alberta’s pipeline network is completely maxed out, meaning the oilsands are landlocked and new pipelines must be constructed to allow producers to ship their product to new markets and eliminate the discount imposed on exports.

It’s a notion that’s been repeated by politicians of all stripes, including Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

But there’s no merit to that argument, according to a new report from the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Oil Change International.

In the briefing, titled “Canada Not Running Out of Pipeline Capacity,” authors Adam Scott and Greg Muttitt point out that there’s around 400,000 barrels/day of unused capacity in the network, easily accommodating exports for projects currently operating and under construction.

This calculation was derived from the organization’s Integrated North American Pipeline model, which then concluded the network was 89 per cent full.

As a result, the only reason that new pipelines like Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East would be required is if there’s a massive expansion of the oilsands, a move that would arguably undermine the Paris Agreement and other international climate commitments (an argument also made by David Hughes in his thorough June 2016 report for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives).

“When you look at the reality of the situation building new pipelines would not increase the amount of money that producers receive because there isn’t a shortage,” Scott told DeSmog Canada. “And there’s no discount anymore that could be relieved by building a new pipeline.”

“It’s really that missing piece of the puzzle that Canadians are not getting good information on.”

Only Reason for Kinder Morgan and Energy East Would Be For Huge Oilsands Expansion

Scott isn’t discounting the historical existence of an artificial price differential. Rather, he’s arguing that it no longer applies.

There was a serious pipeline constraint in 2012 and 2013 that resulted in a transport-related price gap between Western Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent Crude with Western Canadian Select (WCS). In other words, the lack of pipeline access rendered bitumen production and transport less economically viable.

But that changed with the construction of new pipelines between Illinois, Oklahoma and refineries on the Gulf Coast in 2013 and 2014, as well as the removal of a 40-year ban in the U.S. on exporting domestically produced oil in December 2015 (which the report suggests “reduced market distortions between shale oil and oil sands crude oil at U.S. Gulf Coast refineries”).

Now, oilsands producers are facing three major issues that ultimately have nothing to do with pipelines: lower quality crude, distance from major markets (almost exclusively in the U.S. given access to heavy oil refineries) and extremely low global prices.

“In reality, that differential is basically gone now,” Scott says.

He suggests that the pipeline network may come close to full in 2018, resulting in a “very brief” spike in prices.

But there are more expansions planned for the network that will likely come online to loosen that bottleneck: Enbridge is currently planning to add 800,000 barrel/day worth of pipeline capacity to its mainline system by 2020, which wouldn’t require new permits as it would be an expansion rather than a new pipeline. Kinder Morgan and Energy East wouldn’t be constructed until 2020 or so.

“It has nothing to do with the decision about current pipelines,” he says.

Taking the Enbridge expansion into consideration, the Oil Change International report concludes that “only significant additional plans to increase production beyond projects already operating, in-construction or sanctioned would change this situation.”

One Million Additional Barrels/Day Allowed Under Oilsands Cap

Here’s a bit of rough math to provide some additional context.

The oilsands currently produce about 2.4 million barrels/day and 70 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon emissions per year. Alberta’s new emissions cap on the oilsands allows for only 100 Mt per year.

Assuming that per-barrel emissions stay constant (which is unlikely given that most new production will occur via the more energy intensive process of in-situ), the cap allows for another one million barrels/day or so of production, up to around 3.4 million barrels/day.

David Hughes has also calculated the 45 per cent increase in production could be accommodated via existing pipeline and rail networks, which includes a 15 per cent surplus for maintenance and pipeline problems.

Specifically, the potential addition of 800,000 barrels/day from Enbridge added to the 400,000 barrels/day in current spare capacity allows for 1.2 million barrels/day in new production.

If Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain or TransCanada’s Energy East are approved by the federal government, it will serve as a clear signal that nobody’s taking that cap seriously.

That’s the assumption that allows the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to estimate that oilsands production will increase from 2.4 million barrels/day in 2015 to 3.7 million barrels/day in 2030, and the National Energy Board to calculate that oilsands exports could increase to 4.5 million barrels/day by 2040.

Oil Industry Is ‘Betting That In The Future the Government Will Ignore Its Own Climate Policy’

But such a spike can’t happen if Canada has any intention of meeting international climate commitments, especially its Paris Agreement target of reducing emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

A widely shared report published in September by Oil Change International titled “The Sky’s Limit” concluded that no new oil, gas, or coal extraction projects can be built if the world has any legitimate interest in staying below the mark of two degrees celsius above pre-industrial averages.

“Investment in new projects beyond what’s already under construction has stalled completely with the oil prices,” Scott says. “The oil industry knows these pipelines aren’t required and they’re betting that in the future the government will ignore its own climate policy and that somehow, miraculously, the price of oil will recover. Both of those things would be required for those pipelines to be needed.”

A recent analysis by economist Robyn Allan found that constrained oil production in the oilsands is exclusively the result of low oil prices, not restricted pipeline capacity. Allan found a total of 2.7 million barrels per day of oilsands production was cancelled between January 2014 and September 2016 due to the low price environment.

Per-Barrel Emissions Have Increased by One-Quarter in Last Decade

It also assumes that technological innovations will help decrease per-barrel emissions in order to meet those climate commitments.

Yet recent history shows little precedent for that: a Pembina Institute report from August 2016 noted that total emissions intensity has increased by 25 per cent between 2004 and 2014.

Technologies such as using solvents instead of gas to extract bitumen via in-situ isn’t very advanced, Scott says, and the increasingly popular technology features a far higher per-barrel emissions rate in both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide than open-pit mining.

“With the crash in oil prices, [research and development] budgets and the willingness of the oil industry to spend extra marginal dollars on extra technology that would increase the cost is gone,” he says.

“We don’t expect the oil industry will have a real ability to dramatically reduce emissions intensity.”

Yet politicians across Canada continue to push for pipelines, with the Kinder Morgan Trans-Mountain project expected to receive approval shortly before Christmas.

Scott suggests that such elected officials “are completely ignoring the reality of what the Paris Agreement means” and those who contend that new fossil fuel development can be allowed under such commitments “don’t understand climate science.”

“We’re not saying we need to shut down the fossil fuel industry tomorrow,” Scott says.

“But Canada can’t meet its own obligations to the Paris Agreement if it intends to allow for that expansion. In that way, the decision of whether or not to build these pipelines is a direct choice from politicians about whether or not they’re going to honour their obligations on climate change. It’s that simple.”

Image: Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi. Photo: Government of Canada

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.

Stop a random person on the street. Ask them for the first thing that pops into their head when they think of Alberta’s oilsands.

Unless they’re an industry analyst or an over-enthused real estate agent turned corporate shill, chances are that they’ll describe either buffalo roaming on a restored tailings pond or helicopter shots of open-pit mining. Individuals are more likely to describe a visual element of the resource as opposed to, say, the barrels per day of oil or annual megatonnes of greenhouse gasses the region produces.

It’s this notion — that pictures, videos and other media representations often have extremely powerful influence on discourse about the oilsands — that compelled Patrick McCurdy to launch the MediaToil project.

“The premise of my work is that media is a site of social struggles,” McCurdy, an associate professor in the department of communications at the University of Ottawa, told DeSmog Canada. “It’s a battle for our imaginations and what we think about a certain topic and the actions we’re willing to take. I wanted to try to map that.”

Working with a two-year grant from the Social Sciences and Humanity Research Council, McCurdy and his team identified all the different stakeholders involved in the oilsands (of which there are many: corporations, industry associations, media, environmental non-profits, Indigenous groups), combed their websites and created an Excel database with the links.

Online Oilsands Campaigns Can Disappear from Web

McCurdy said one of the key challenges his team encountered was the lack of digital posterity of online oilsands campaigns and ads.

Unlike analyzing something like historic tobacco advertising — which is often still available via microfilm or print — many digital campaigns are no longer live, meaning companies and industry organizations can effectively eliminate controversial points in history from the record.

Take the 2010 television campaign by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) which compared the consistency of oilsands tailings waste to yogurt: the Sierra Club of Canada filed a complaint to Advertising Standards Canada, arguing that it misrepresented the toxic nature of tailings. CAPP eventually revised the ad, removing the yogurt reference.

“But this ad no longer exists,” McCurdy said.

“The challenge is it has an impact on the public imagination. Of course, the Advertising Council ruled in CAPP’s favour, but no matter — if you wanted to for your own interest watch this ad, it doesn’t exist. It’s been removed.”

New Public Database Charts Decades of #Oilsands Advertising #cdnpoli #bcpoli #ableg #oilandgas https://t.co/g5si0itH5B

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 13, 2016

Rise of ‘Apocalyptic Imagery’ in Oilsands Campaigns

Despite such challenges, he says it’s possible to detect trends in communication strategies.

Back in the 1980s, depictions of the oilsands emphasized “images of accomplishment by industry: man over nature, ability to make money from dirt,” McCurdy said.

But that kind of rhetoric saw a decline in the early 2000s, when companies like Suncor attempted to balance community responsibility with environmental burdens (which McCurdy calls “caring for toads”) and didn’t engage in the “trend ad warfare” we see now.

Everything changed following the rise of “apocalyptic imagery” in 2008 and 2009 by organizations like Greenpeace, which executed huge banner drops and other image-heavy events. (The Syncrude duck disaster of 2008 also provided visual fodder for organizations unsatisfied with the province’s approach to environmental regulations.)

Industry and its network of associations first responded with photos of smiling CEOs backdropped with lush forests and freshwater. But they quickly ditched that strategy, opting for what we’re stuck with now: lifestyle rhetoric, boosterism and appeals to potential supporters instead of engagements with critics.

Screenshots from Canada Action, left, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Raise Your Hand campaign, right.

Meanwhile, Indigenous communities and organizations tend to be significantly underrepresented, with the exceptions of media events like the Tarsands Healing Walk and appearances in ads by environmental organizations like WWF or Greenpeace.

“Looking at these ads certainly tracks and captures these shifts in strategies,” McCurdy said. “For me, the value of tracking this over time is you can look at what are the political decisions that have been made, what are the milestones in the timeline of the oilsands that relate to this?”

70-Page Comic Book To Be Published Alongside Database

But McCurdy wanted to broaden the project even beyond the database and the peer-reviewed papers that will eventually come, as it was important to think of another way to engage the public given the debate currently resembles a “red team vs. blue team thing.”

For that, he contacted Nicole Marie Burton and Hugh Goldring of Ad Astra Comix on Twitter to create a 70-page graphic novel loosely based on the themes of the MediaToil project.

Goldring said the work will follow the experience of two young photographers in Edmonton that work for advertising agencies representing “opposite sides.”

“It tracks their conflict of conscience,” he said. “The whole reason we picked people in advertising in the first place was that it provided a way to look at the production of these images.”

Goldring added that while the database of images is important, it’s McCurdy’s work that applies the larger contextual frame.

“Patrick’s work in a larger sense is in the way the images are produced and what the larger semiotic meaning or context of the work that’s being put out by these ad agencies is.”

Burton said the graphic novel will feature a fair bit of ambiguity, and is ultimately intended to help provoke conversation and provide discussion topics for bigger picture questions about the framing and discourse of the oilsands.

The comic will come out sometime in 2017, wbe available for free online as a downloadable PDF. In the meantime, McCurdy hopes that the public will point out “blind spots” in the database and explore the ads and fact sheets further.

Energy East Debate Further Emphasizes Need for Analysis of Visual Rhetoric

And while data collection was only conducted up until 2015, the goal is to continue it. Especially given the country’s increased focus on TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline. McCurdy said it’s “a true battle over statistics” that’s falsely presented as a national unification project that will reduce the country’s dependency on foreign imports.

A popular image that’s made its way around social media features a series of flags of countries that Canada currently imports oil from, with the implication that such imports would cease with the construction of Energy East. But recent reports suggest that a great majority of oil shipped east via the pipeline would actually be exported to the United States.

It’s these kinds of projects — along with the way that solar and wind technologies are visually communicated by fossil fuel companies — that McCurdy hopes to explore during his 2017 sabbatical.

“I think it’s time we actually try to pick apart this persuasive communication which is a proxy, very much, for public debate,” he says.

“It really clouds our ability to think critically about these things and becomes a back-and-forth. That’s part of the reason for the comic, and part of the reason for the database is to have some stuff out there for the public as opposed to just tucking stuff away in peer-reviewed academic journals.”

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.