Frederick Olsen Junior does not mince words when describing a joint B.C.-Alaska government report on water quality in rivers that originate in northwest B.C. and flow into Southeast Alaska.

“Smoke and mirrors. Lip service. Box-checking,” said Olsen, who is executive director of the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission, a consortium of 15 tribal nations dedicated to protecting rivers.

The governments of B.C. and Alaska formed a bilateral working group four years ago, after decades of concerns about the effects of runoff from working and abandoned B.C. mines in the Stikine, Taku and Unuk watersheds. The group includes representatives from government agencies, Indigenous nations and industry. For two years, the group sampled and studied water, sediment, fish and other aquatic life from the three rivers to come up with baseline data and figure out whether or not the rivers and aquatic life are at risk.

The group’s final report, released on Feb. 25, concluded that the rivers “continue to support and sustain aquatic life in conjunction with mining and other land use activities.” It also found that although some water samples in B.C. exceeded provincial water quality guidelines, samples downstream of the B.C.-Alaska border did not exceed Alaska water quality standards.

But critics question the findings and say the group failed to adequately engage Indigenous and community groups.

Frederick Olsen Junior, executive director of the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission, is disappointed by the new B.C.-Alaska report on the impact of B.C. mines on transboundary watersheds. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Jill Weitz, director of Salmon Beyond Borders, which has spearheaded campaigns to protect the transboundary watersheds, said groups fighting to protect Alaska rivers do not believe the report accurately reflects what is happening in the rivers or the extent of community involvement.

“We have all agreed that it is a misrepresentation, not only of the public engagement and involvement of the state with Alaskans and the tribes, but a misrepresentation of the risk and potential risk and concerns around development in these watersheds,” Weitz said.

Critics are also concerned that the joint monitoring program is wrapping up. 

“It clearly identifies a notion that the State of Alaska and B.C. are not interested in developing a long-term management strategy for these transboundary watersheds,” Weitz said.

A news release from the province says there are other sampling programs planned by provincial, state and federal agencies, so there is no need for the joint monitoring program. However, the release said Alaska and B.C. will continue to work on protection of the shared waterways.

“Water and wildlife don’t recognize borders and so it’s up to all of us to protect our critical and priceless watersheds, regardless of jurisdiction,” B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman said in the news release.

In December, the U.S. Congress, led by the Alaska Congressional Delegation, allocated US$3.62 million to the U.S. Geological Survey to continue baseline monitoring at the international border.

Advocates have been calling on B.C. to clean up mining for decades

The Stikine, Taku and Unuk watersheds are prime salmon habitats, but populations in the Taku and Stikine are struggling and there have long been concerns about the potential adverse effects on them from mines. These concerns have been heightened by the 2014 Mount Polley mine disaster, which sent 24 million cubic metres of mine waste into nearby waterways after the tailings pond dam collapsed, and the six decades of inaction on cleaning up the Tulsequah Chief mine, which leaches acid waste into a tributary of the Taku.

Alaska environmental groups and tribes are concerned that B.C. mines such as Brucejack, shown here, are having negative impacts on their water that were not captured in a new B.C.-Alaska government report. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

For years, community, environmental and Indigenous groups on both sides of the border have been urging B.C. to clean up its act, tighten mining regulations and permitting requirements, demand adequate site cleanup securities from companies and bring in financial assurances to cover disasters. In 2019, in an unprecedented bipartisan move, eight U.S. senators pressed B.C. to take action. A letter from the senators highlighted the need for B.C. to improve mining safeguards and urged Premier John Horgan to recognize that contamination from upstream mines threatens Alaska businesses and resources.

Last year, an international group of 22 scientists and policy experts published a commentary in the journal Science urging both governments to address potential damages caused by pollution from B.C. mines flowing into the U.S.

The B.C. government has finally pledged to clean up the abandoned Tulsequah Chief and has committed almost $1.6 million for immediately needed work and additional studies. But B.C.’s mining sector is booming and Alaska environmental groups and tribes are concerned that, in addition to already approved or operating mines such as KSM, Brucejack and Red Chris, other major proposed projects, such as Galore Creek and Schaft Creek, are wending their way through the process and B.C.’s regulations will not protect Alaska waters.

The Stikine, Taku and Unuk watersheds, which are shared by B.C. and Alaska, are home to several mines at various lifecycle stages. Map: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

There is still no way for Alaskans to deal with problems originating from B.C. mines, said Chris Zimmer, Alaska campaign director with Rivers Without Borders.

“We still don’t have financial assurances to compensate Alaskans, there is still not a great transboundary plan to deal with problems,” he said. “It’s one thing to find out what is in the water, it’s a completely other thing to be able to clean it up and fix it.”

Critics raise concerns about research methods 

Over the past decade, government agencies and First Nations on both sides of the border have set up monitoring systems, but they recognized there was a need to establish baseline data against which to measure future impacts.

Jason Brune, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, said the baseline data is incredibly important.

“The data has not shown a measurable impact to Alaskan waters from historical mining activities in B.C. and will serve as a foundation to assess potential impacts from future industrial activity as well,” he said in the news release.

The joint monitoring program included habitat assessments, physical and chemical analyses of water and sediment and analyses of resident fish species from each watershed — although the report notes that there was no way to determine how long each fish had spent at the capture site. 

The sampling took place between August 2017 and September 2019. In B.C., there were 23 sampling sites. In Alaska, up to five sites in each watershed were randomly selected for sampling and up to an additional six sites were chosen in priority areas.

Researchers found some sites in B.C had elevated concentrations of cadmium, copper, selenium and zinc in the water and some exceeded provincial guidelines, but the elements were found above and below mine sites, likely reflecting natural concentrations, according to the report. No exceedances of Alaska Water Quality Standards were found downstream of the B.C.-Alaska border.

Sediment samples from all three watersheds found sites with higher concentrations of arsenic, copper and nickel than set out in guidelines for aquatic life on both sides of the border. Concentrations were higher in sediment samples in tributaries than the main stem of rivers, with sediment from the Unuk watershed showing the highest concentrations. Again, the exceedances were found above and below mine sites.

The report said naturally occurring mineral deposits in the watershed likely influence water and sediment quality, but, in the Taku watershed, concentrations are affected by discharges from the Tulsequah Chief.

The Grand Canyon of the Stikine River is downstream from the Red Chris mine and could be affected in the event of a tailings dam failure. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Alaskans are worried that contaminants from mine tailings ponds in B.C., like this one at Red Chris mine, could make their way into their water. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Tests on fish produced mixed results. For example, the report flagged copper concentrations in Alaska sculpin in the Stikine watershed, but found element concentrations in Dolly Varden char were lower in Alaska than B.C on the Unuk river.

The report notes that, because of the size, diversity and complexity of the watersheds, more focused sampling programs are needed to establish what is impacting water quality and aquatic species.

Christopher Sergeant, a research scientist with the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station, reviewed an early draft of the report and had concerns about how data was being collected.

“Monitoring efforts tend to be concentrated in small areas of each watershed or relatively short-term in effort,” he wrote in a brief.

Sergeant said the bilateral report is an important effort, but misses the mark as far as setting up a baseline of water, fish and sediment health.

“It’s just a start,” he told The Narwhal. “Measuring one spot a couple of times over one or two years does not create a baseline, especially in these rivers where climate change is making glaciers recede. There’s more rain falling and changing all the natural patterns of these rivers and that’s happening at the same time as potential mining impacts.” 

The Tulsequah Chief mine has been leaking contaminated water into a salmon watershed on the B.C.-Alaska border for over 60 years. Photo: Colin Arisman / The Narwhal

That uncertainty means scientists should be increasing measurements to understand the variability of the rivers, said Sergeant, adding that many of the tests were opportunistic, rather than a true coordinated effort, partially because of the difficulty of working in such remote areas.

Sergeant is also concerned about some of the species chosen for fish tissue samples.

Some species, such as Dolly Varden char, travel between two or three rivers in a day, so samples do not pinpoint where a problem might be occurring.

“I would say that, in some cases, they chose the wrong species,” Sergeant said.

Zimmer told The Narwhal he is concerned the report does not show the effects of the mines on fish in areas such as the Tulsequah River and he is worried it gives the false impression that everything is fine in the watersheds.

“What are the effects of sublethal levels of metals, below the water quality standards, especially with metals such as copper, which is so toxic in such tiny, tiny quantities?” asked Zimmer.

“We know we have got a bunch of crap coming out of the Tulsequah Chief mine — literally tonnes of lead and copper and arsenic — so what’s the effect of that?”

Indigenous groups call for ‘true collaboration’

The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska are among groups who say they have not worked with the bilateral group. The Tlingit and Haida’s Native Lands and Resources Department has been collecting baseline data in the headwaters of several transboundary rivers for five years, but were not asked to submit their data for the report, according to a news release.

Their sampling program has not yet finished, but the council will be releasing some findings from the Taku and Stikine rivers in about a month.

“Our way of life depends upon the health of our transboundary waters and it’s important for Alaska tribes and B.C. First Nations to be fully engaged for true collaboration to exist,” Central Council President Richard Chalyee Eesh Peterson said.

Peterson said the report should not be viewed as the final word and Alaska tribes and B.C. First Nations need to be involved in creating a transboundary water resources management framework.

“No one should say they’ve found no environmental harm and conclude their efforts,” Peterson said. “This is just the beginning.”

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 his first weeks in office, President Joe Biden sent a clear message to the world: the United States is getting serious about climate action.

On inauguration day, Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement on climate change, issued a temporary moratorium on oil and natural gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, directed government agencies to consider revising fuel economy standards and methane emissions regulations and cancelled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline by executive order. 

“The United States and the world face a climate crisis,” he said. “That crisis must be met with action on a scale and at a speed commensurate with the need to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.”

Days later, Biden issued further orders, committing the U.S. to emissions-free electricity generation by 2035 and a net-zero economy by 2050. He also established a national climate task force with leaders from all 21 federal agencies and departments “to enable a whole-of-government approach to combating the climate crisis.”

The plans put forward by Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris are a marked shift from Donald Trump’s crusade to roll back dozens of environmental policies and regulations.

The new U.S. administration also offers a prime opportunity for Canada’s clean economy after a challenging four years, which saw Ottawa frequently at odds with its largest trading partner over key climate measures.

But it also means Canada “can’t afford to be lackadaisical about climate action because our key trading partner, one of the globe’s largest economies, is serious about it,” said Ravipal Bains, a corporate lawyer with McMillan LLP who has experience in environmental and social governance issues.

“It may become a competitiveness issue if we are not matching or keeping speed with the U.S. in terms of sustainability,” he said.

U.S. climate action ‘hugely significant’ for Canada

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a think tank at Simon Fraser University, said U.S. climate action is “hugely significant for Canada.”

Biden has clearly signaled the U.S. is transitioning away from greenhouse gas-intensive products toward clean energy and clean technology, she said, and Canada has an opportunity to help fulfill demand.

“This is our race to lose, we are well positioned, but we need to take action,” Smith said.

While Biden and Harris have taken significant steps already and promised more to come, their administration is facing a considerable challenge in closing the gap in climate policies left by the previous government.

“They lost four years during the Trump presidency,” said Eddy Pérez, the international climate diplomacy manager at Climate Action Network.

Canada, meanwhile, was able to push climate action forward, including by implementing a carbon tax, despite the challenges posed by the former U.S. administration, he said.

In December, the Liberal government proposed increasing the federal backstop carbon price by $15 each year starting in 2023, which would see the price rise to $170 per tonne by 2030.

In some areas, though, the Biden-Harris government is already leading the way.

Biden vows to address environmental injustice

Biden committed to addressing environmental injustice in the U.S. and has directed all federal agencies to develop policies and programs to tackle the “disproportionate health, environmental, economic and climate impacts on disadvantaged communities.”

He has also established a White House environmental justice inter-agency council and environmental justice advisory council.

“You don’t see that explicitly in Canada,” said Deborah McGregor, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous environmental justice at York University. “Canada doesn’t have an environmental justice framework.”

Biden’s directive builds on a 1994 executive order that required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies to develop environmental justice policies.

McGregor said Biden’s recent order strengthens environmental justice policy by expanding it across the entire government.

“It’s going to enable people on the ground to be able to hold them accountable,” she said.

One thing Biden’s order doesn’t specifically address is the impact of colonialism. 

“That’s a big part of how Indigenous people experience injustice,” said McGregor, who is Anishinaabe from Whitefish River First Nation. “If you don’t actually address the underlying causes, there’s always going to be the undercurrent of the conditions that create injustice.”

Meanwhile in Canada, the federal government has not explicitly addressed environmental justice or environmental racism in its climate plan.

But private member’s bill Bill C-230, which would mandate the development of a national strategy to redress the harms caused by environmental racism, is garnering attention particularly among scholars and environmental advocates, she said, crediting Ingrid Waldron with leading the push for the legislation.

Waldron, a sociologist at Dalhousie University, directs the Environmental Noxiousness, Racial Inequities and Community Health (ENRICH) Project, an initiative to address the effects of environmental racism in Mi’kmaq and African Nova Scotian communities.

Put forward by Lenore Zann, a Liberal MP from Nova Scotia, the bill acknowledges that “a disproportionate number of people who live in environmentally hazardous areas are members of an Indigenous or racialized community” and calls for the development of a strategy to address environmental racism.

In December, Justice Minister David Lametti also introduced Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While some experts see it as an important step forward, others say it fails to live up to the intent of the UN declaration, APTN reported late last year.

Both bills are in the early stages of the legislative process. 

McGregor said U.S. acknowledgement of environmental injustice explicitly in its climate policies could influence further action in Canada.

U.S. climate measures could spur further action by Trudeau

New ambition in Washington could make it easier for the Trudeau government to ramp up efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions and make investments in Canada’s clean economy.

“We hear this over and over and over in Canada that our portion of global emissions is so small that we really shouldn’t take an economic hit of any kind in reducing those emissions … unless the U.S. makes significant strides,” said Sarah Burch, Canada Research Chair in sustainability governance and innovation at the University of Waterloo.

With the U.S. now promising major investments in climate action, that argument goes up in smoke.

A key question is what will it mean for the oil industry, which Burch called Canada’s “Achilles heel.” 

‘This is a wake-up call’ for Canada on fossil fuels

Biden’s decision to cancel the permit for Keystone XL was met with disappointment in Canada from both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.

Kenney called for economic retaliation or compensation for TC Energy as well as his own government — which invested $1.5 billion in the pipeline just last year — if Biden would not reconsider the project. Kenney subsequently said his government planned to sue for compensation under provisions of the North American free-trade agreement that remain in place, The Globe and Mail reported.

Richard Masson, an executive fellow at the University of Calgary’s school of public policy and chair of World Petroleum Council Canada, said if both Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion are built — offering almost a million barrels in new pipeline capacity between them — they could accommodate oilsands production forecast through 2025 or 2026.

“It was about that point where Keystone would start to be needed,” he said. Without it, his guess is that oil will be shipped through the Trans Mountain pipeline, loaded onto tankers and shipped through the Panama Canal to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The Keystone decision was just one of a number of measures Biden took during his first weeks in office that signal the U.S. is shifting away from fossil fuels. Biden also paused new oil and natural gas leases on public lands, ordered a review of all existing leases and permitting practices for fossil fuel development on federal land and directed federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies.

In his first few days in office, Biden made some big moves to signal his commitment to climate action, including cancelling the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The decision, while expected, drew criticism from the Alberta and federal governments. Photo: Government of Alberta / Flickr

At the same time, he ordered all federal agencies to procure zero-emission vehicles, a step that could boost the electric vehicle market in the U.S., where transportation accounts for 28 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions and 68 per cent of petroleum consumption.

“From a Canadian perspective, this is a wake-up call,” Pérez, of Climate Action Network, told The Narwhal. While Canada has taken important steps such as introducing climate accountability legislation and a carbon price, “we have not willingly addressed our biggest and most difficult challenge, which is our dependence on the fossil fuel economy,” he said. 

“The Biden administration is doing that.”

While the emissions intensity (the amount of emissions released per unit of production) in the oilsands declined between 2000 and 2018, according to Natural Resources Canada data, overall emissions from the oil and gas sector increased 23 per cent largely due to increased production.

And Masson said he expects to see Canada’s oil production continue to increase over the next 10 to 15 years. 

“Globally, our demand for oil is not likely to really fall off a cliff anytime soon,” he said.

Canadian experts are closely watching to see what Biden’s climate policy will mean for Canada’s oil industry, which relies heavily on U.S. demand. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

An April 2020 report prepared by a Montreal consulting firm for the federal government raised concerns that the supply of plug-in electric vehicles isn’t keeping up with demand. 

Electric sales have increased substantially in Canada in recent years: zero-emission vehicles accounted for 3.5 per cent of new vehicles registered in the first half of 2020, up from 2.2 per cent of all sales in 2018. Globally, electric vehicles had captured 2.8 per cent of the global market by the first quarter of 2020, according to an analysis by McKinsey. 

But Masson said he doesn’t expect a sea change on the vehicle front.

“What Biden is working on, that is important, and it’s going to have implications, but it’s not going to change overall consumption in a dramatic way,” he said. “In my view we’re so locked into the system that we have that it’s very difficult to turn that boat.”

Ninety-eight per cent of Canada’s oil exports go to the U.S., which means the future of crude demand south of the border will have a huge impact on the pace of Canada’s transition to a clean economy, Burch said. If that market shrinks, it would incentivize economic diversification and investment in renewable energy, she said.

Between Biden’s plan to transition the U.S. federal fleet of 645,000 vehicles to zero-emission vehicles and recent announcements from companies such as FedEx and Amazon to do the same, there is “potential for EV adoption to happen very rapidly in the United States,” said Sara Hastings-Simon, a research fellow at the University of Calgary’s school of public policy, in an opinion piece for CBC News.

“The impact of electrifying transportation on oil consumption in the United States will be significant,” she wrote.

U.S. push for clean economy holds opportunities for Canada

It also brings major new opportunities for Canada’s clean economy.

Natural Resources Canada reports the country gets about 82 per cent of its electricity from zero-emission sources, predominantly hydroelectric projects in B.C., Manitoba and Quebec. In recent years, however, a broader recognition of the social and environmental impacts of large-scale hydro projects has brought more public scrutiny of hydro and especially the construction of new dams to support electricity exports to the U.S.

But there are many opportunities across the country to expand renewable energy production, said Smith, the executive director of Clean Energy Canada.

“Alberta has enormous solar and wind potential — we have great renewable potential all across Canada — so we could be selling renewable electrons to the United States,” she said.

Canada and the U.S. could work together on a continental approach to clean electricity that could see both countries reach 100 per cent emissions-free electricity by 2035, she suggested.

Hydroelectric projects like B.C.’s Site C dam are a key driver behind Canada’s zero-emission electricity generation. But the social and environmental impacts of hydro projects have been coming under increased scrutiny of late. Photo: Jayce Hawkins / The Narwhal

There are numerous Canadian clean tech companies poised to help meet the demand for lower carbon products, Smith said, pointing to Nova Scotia’s CarbonCure Technologies, which embeds carbon dioxide in concrete, and B.C.’s Ballard Power, which provides hydrogen fuel cells for buses and other vehicles, as just two examples.

Other opportunities lie in the development of the metals, minerals and other natural resources needed to build a clean economy — the ingredients for zero-emission vehicles and energy efficient buildings.

“We are brilliantly positioned to work with the U.S. on what could be a North American electric auto pact,” Smith said, adding that mining, forestry and other natural resource industries are major job creators.

While Biden did include provisions that the clean electricity and zero-emission vehicles procured by federal agencies must be made in the U.S., Bains, the McMillan LLP lawyer, noted these types of Buy American procurement policies aren’t new. He doesn’t expect Biden’s plans to cause major stumbling blocks for Canadian companies, though the Canadian government could lobby for exemptions. 

Ultimately, the new U.S. procurement policies could help bolster overall demand for clean technologies in the private sector that could benefit Canadian companies, Bains said.

Other changes in the U.S., including possible new rules requiring companies to adequately disclose their climate risks when trying to raise financing, could affect Canadian companies as well, said Bains, and possibly lead to changes in Canadian regulations.

“Many Canadian companies, particularly natural resource and resource oriented companies look down to the U.S. … to raise capital,” he said.

Time for Canada to walk the walk on climate action, experts say

Observers say Canada needs to move quickly to capitalize on these opportunities.

“This is a race,” Smith said. “In a race, you can fall behind very quickly, even if you’re at a strong starting position.”

In November, the Trudeau government introduced legislation to formalize its commitments to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. In December, it unveiled new measures to achieve that goal.

Now, Smith said, “we need to act on them.”

Smith suggested Trudeau could follow Biden’s lead and ensure all federal vehicles purchased are electric. The Canadian government could also establish a national zero-emission vehicle mandate requiring car dealerships to sell a certain percentage of electric cars, a step beyond existing targets — that 10 per cent of all new vehicles sold by 2025 be zero-emission before reaching 100 per cent by 2040.

“We’ve seen it work in British Columbia and Quebec,” she said.

 There are other areas where Canada and the U.S. can push climate action forward together, Pérez said, including vehicle emissions standards, methane and carbon emission regulations, carbon border adjustments, and policies for the Arctic.

A chance to reimagine the future

While Biden’s climate plan is certainly a major departure from the previous administration, Burch cautions that the measures put forward so far are not entirely “transformative.”

“It’s essentially trying to preserve livelihoods and lifestyles exactly as they are but just drawing upon renewable energy as the source of fuel and power,” she said.

“If we all have single occupancy vehicles that are powered by renewable energy, that’s good. But our cities then stay the same shape, same function as they were before,” Burch said. “You’re still commuting vast distances across suburbs and sprawling urban areas to get to your work.”

In this scenario, there may be few incentives to invest in public transit or infrastructure that allows for more people to bike or walk through their communities, she said.

Burch hopes Canada can “contribute a more holistically sustainable vision of what communities could look like — healthier and more biodiverse, more inclusive and equitable, and also lower carbon.”In what could be a start toward that vision, Trudeau recently announced almost $15 billion in funding for public transit projects, including a portion that will be used to develop a permanent $3 billion per-year fund. Most of the money, though, won’t start flowing until 2026.

Updated on Feb. 18, 2021 at 1:10 p.m. PST: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Canada exports 98 per cent of its oil to the U.S. In fact, 98 per cent of Canada’s oil exports go to the U.S.

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 one of his first acts of office, U.S. President Joe Biden has issued an executive order that effectively kills the Keystone XL pipeline project.

The order states that the pipeline “disserves the U.S. national interest” and that approving it would be inconsistent with his campaign climate pledges.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney called the move a “gut punch” and an “insult” and has threatened legal action to recoup Alberta’s $1.5 billion investment in the project.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a statement that expressed disappointment, but struck a far more conciliatory tone. He signalled a desire to work with the Biden administration and implicitly conceded that the pipeline won’t be resurrected again.

While the reaction from Alberta implies Biden’s move came as a shock, the truth is that cancelling Keystone XL was a key part of Biden’s election platform and was telegraphed clearly throughout the campaign.

Obama’s rejection

It’s worth remembering that Keystone XL was rejected previously by Barack Obama’s administration in 2015, after several years of controversy, and that the environmental concerns used to justify that decision have not gone away. This decision should have been expected and planned for.

But it would seem that both Alberta and TC Energy (formerly TransCanada) felt that there was a good chance the project would proceed despite Biden’s election win. Early in January 2021, TC Energy opened bidding on existing pipeline space expected to be freed up by the construction of the new line.

The Keystone XL cancellation will significantly impact Canada and Alberta. TC Energy has estimated that Canada would have added 2,800 jobs directly associated with this project, mostly in Alberta, and contends the United States would have seen 10,400 new positions.

The Biden administration’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline was largely expected on both sides of the border, especially given former President Barack Obama previously rejected the project in 2015. Photo: Government of Alberta / Flickr

Let’s put that in perspective: in 2020, it was estimated that total oil and gas employment in Alberta was 128,180, and thus the number of lost jobs represents 2.2 per cent of the total sector employment in the province — a very significant proportion for a single project.

The loss of Keystone XL also will impact future projects in the province’s oilsands. We know that one of the reasons that companies are reducing investments in the oilsands is that there is a transport bottleneck that affects the ability to get new product to market.

Keystone XL would have been able to move 830,000 barrels per day. Total Canadian oilsands production is only 2.9 million barrels per day, so adding Keystone XL may have attracted new investment to the oilsands to take advantage of this transportation capacity, which in turn would have meant billions in royalties to the province. GDP growth resulting from this investment would have benefited all of Canada.

Read more: Trans Mountain, Coastal GasLink, Keystone XL: where things stand with Canada’s pipeline projects

The cancellation of Keystone XL could leave Alberta out-of-pocket for the $1.5 billion invested by the government earlier this year. This investment — almost $400 for each individual in the province — may be recouped through legal means or reinvested by the company, or simply written off.

The province also made $6 billion in loan guarantees that may be recovered. Overall, however, the province will likely lose money on this deal — and the voters ultimately will decide the price.

Energy East born again?

So what’s next?

There have been reports that some of the pipe and materials may be sold for scrap if Keystone XL can’t move forward. In reality, the majority of the actual pipe has not yet been laid, meaning pipes could easily be repurposed for other projects. So some investment may be recovered over an extended time.

Indeed, TC Energy may look to the past when figuring out its next move.

One option that might be explored is revisiting Energy East, a pipeline that would have seen 1.1 million barrels per day of Alberta oil travel over 3,000 kilometres to reach tidewater at Saint John, N.B.

Read more: Total’s Alberta oilsands writeoff is a wake-up call — not a cheap shot

Energy East was arguably the most complicated infrastructure project ever imagined in Canada, involving the federal government, six provincial legislatures, hundreds of municipalities and 180 traditional Indigenous territories. The project would have crossed thousands of waterways ranging from streams to major waterways including the South Saskatchewan, Red, Ottawa, and St. Lawrence rivers.

The project was hugely controversial, and was cancelled in 2017 — partly because former president Donald Trump had re-approved Keystone XL earlier that year.

Rethinking pipelines

But before backing yet another pipeline project, Alberta and all of Canada ultimately need to decide if more pipeline capacity is really needed.

Keystone XL struggled to find investors prior to Alberta’s decision to provide funds. The frequently cited “Canadian discount” in oil prices, which entails Canadian oil being sold at lower prices than the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) index, has in recent months been reduced as oil prices have begun to recover.

In Ottawa and in Washington, policies to address the climate emergency have taken precedence over new investment in conventional, fossil fuel-based industries.

The Keystone XL project was already struggling before the Biden administration’s cancellation. Now, Alberta and the federal government will need to think carefully on whether Canada really needs more pipeline capacity. Photo Amber Bracken / The Narwhal

The future of Canada’s oil sector may not be in volume, but in value.

Consider that four to five per cent of the volume of oil becomes high-value products like plastics, rubber and chemicals; these products can account for 40 per cent or more of the value derived from a barrel of oil.

New refineries are being designed that focus on these value-added products and minimize bulk fuel products; these new facilities may be smaller and require far less in terms of input, reducing the need for new pipelines.

The death of Keystone XL is a wake-up call for the oil sector. The old way of doing business is fading away, and it must innovate to survive.

Warren Mabee, Director, Queen’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy, Queen’s University, Ontario

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

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 U.S. and Mexico appear to have joined Canada in its fight to prevent a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) investigation of the more than 176 square kilometres of tailings ponds holding waste from the Alberta oilsands near Fort McMurray.

In 2010 a group of citizens and environmental groups petitioned NAFTA’s Commission on Environmental Cooperation to investigate whether Canada is breaking its own federal laws, in particular the Fisheries Act, by failing to adequately manage the massive tailings ponds which hold a toxic mixture of water, silt and chemicals.

“It was important for us to know whether this was happening and whether environmental laws were being broken and whether the government is upholding those laws or ignoring them,” Dale Marshall from Environmental Defence, one of the organizations behind the compliant, said.

A 2012 federal study confirmed the tailings ponds are seeping waste into the local environment and Athabasca River. In 2013 an internal memo prepared for then Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver confirmed groundwater toxins related to bitumen extraction and processing are migrating from the tailings ponds.

“The studies have, for the first time, detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond,” the memo reads. “This finding is consistent with publicly available technical reports of seepage (both projected in theory, and detected in practice).”

A separate Environment Canada study released in late 2014 confirmed tailings ponds emit toxins into the atmosphere at rates nearly five times higher than previously reported.

The NAFTA environmental commission was established in 1994 to investigate public concerns and resolve environmental disputes related to international trade in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

A decision on whether or not to investigate complaints is made by a council comprised of environmental ministers from the three countries. A vote on whether or not to recommend a ‘factual record’ or in-depth investigation is expected to come down within the next week.

Yet in an email to the CBC Environment Canada spokesman Danny Kingsberry said “through a council resolution in December 2014, Canada, Mexico and the U.S. unanimously voted to terminate the submission.”

The statement raised concerns that Canada has already guaranteed success in its protracted fight against the investigation even though the official vote has yet to take place. U.S. and Canadians officials described the statement as “highly unusual” although Canada’s effort to shut down the investigation has been explicit throughout the process.

Previously Dan McDougall, the assistant deputy minister for Environment Canada’s international affairs branch, instructed the commission to “proceed no further with this submission.” McDougall argued a related pending court case ruled out the need for an investigation. When the commission pushed back, McDougall instructed the body to “cease this analysis.”

According to Hugh Benevides, legal officer for the commission, Canada’s efforts to thwart the investigation are unprecedented.

“To my knowledge we have never received such a firm position as we have from Canada as we have in this case,” he told the CBC. “I think it’s safe to say it’s a new approach.”

Canada has blocked previous NAFTA investigations, however, aided in part by Mexico’s vote. In 2014 Canada prevented two investigations, one into B.C. salmon farms and the other into the protection of polar bears.

According to Benevides the council has successfully stopped four investigations in the last 20 years. If Canada prevents an investigation of the oilsands it would bring the total to five, the majority of which will be led by Canada within the last three years.

Debra Steger, international trade law expert at the University of Ottawa, told the CBC that countries are eager to avoid this kind of oversight.

“[A NAFTA investigation] produces a report that can be critical of what the government is doing and no government wants that scrutiny,” she said

Steger added this is especially the case with such politically contentious issues as the Alberta oilsands.

“This is an issue that the three parties probably just don’t want to go too near at this point,” she said.

For Environmental Defence’s Marshall the blocked investigation has everything to do with the pending Keystone XL pipeline decision south of the border.

“It’s clear that President Obama is looking at Canada’s record when he is thinking about approving or not approving certain pipelines going through the U.S.,” he said. “If this is one more stain on Canada’s record then that plays into his decision potentially.”

A vote on the tailings pond investigation is expected as soon as Friday.

Image Credit: Tailings pond at Suncor mining site by 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.

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

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

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

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

Trade talks, not science, weakening the Fuel Quality Directive

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

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

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

Fuel Quality Directive subject of CETA talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. joins the lobby offensive

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: OpenEuropeBlog

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

As scientific studies continue to reveal how carbon emissions are making the world’s oceans more acidic, one prominent academic from British Columbia suggests that the rapidly changing marine chemistry could also eventually negatively affect the economies of some coastal communities. If the recent collapse of a scallop fishery off the coast of B.C.’s Vancouver Island is any indication, those negative changes may already be well underway.

Karen Kohfeld, a Simon Fraser University associate professor and a Canada Research Chair in Climate, Resource, and Global Change, said scientists have learned much about the oceans’ chemical makeup in the past three decades but are less certain about how the increased acid levels will affect ecosystems.

“There may be some species that adapt better than others,” Kohfeld told DeSmog Canada on Thursday. “And in the end, we are just beginning to understand how ocean acidification could impact our coastal fisheries in the long run.”

Although she noted that carbon dioxide exists in the ocean naturally through rotting plants and dead organisms, Kohfeld said that scientific evidence suggests that oceans have become about 30 per cent more acidic since fossil fuels began being burned in the Industrial Revolution approximately 250 years ago.

If that trend continues, she said, oceans could be between 100 per cent and 150 per cent more acidic by the end of this century.

“That is very alarming,” she said, referring to the relative speed that acid levels are increasing in the world’s oceans, cover more than 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface.

About 40 per cent of atmospheric carbon dioxide ends up in oceans where it dissolves and releases an acid that makes it more difficult for some organisms, notably shellfish, to develop properly. Scientists and media outlets have been reporting recently that scallop and oyster farms in the Pacific Northwest have struggled with the increased acid levels.

Scientist are also concerned with a recent mysterious wasting disease that is killing off numerous species of starfish or sea stars along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of North America. The illness causes white lesions on the animal’s body before it ruptures, spilling out internal organs.

“The magnitude of it is very concerning,” said Cornell University ecologist Drew Harvell. “There’s the potential that some of these species could actually go extinct.”

Oceans have absorbed approximately 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, or about one third of the anthropogenic (human-caused) carbon emissions released both from industrial processes (mostly fossil fuel burning) and changes in land use practices (deforestation and urbanization), the University of Alaska says. “This absorption of CO2 has mitigated warming in the atmosphere, but is having negative impacts on the chemistry and biology of the oceans. When CO2 is added to the oceans it lowers the pH causing the upper ocean to become more acidic.”

Kohfeld said that acidification does not occur at the same rate in the world’s oceans. As an example, she said the ability for organisms to form shells is more difficult in colder waters like the North Pacific compared to waters near the equator because colder temperatures dissolve more carbon dioxide.

“One of the things we are seeing is that acidification is affecting organisms at different life stages,” she said adding she suspects scientists are going to start to see more related impacts on communities dependent on harvesting shellfish.

The California Current Acidification Network website notes “coastal ecosystems are particularly sensitive to three key drivers related to climate change: sea level, ocean temperature and ocean acidification.”

A recent National Climate Assessment (NCA) report in the U.S. said “increasing levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities have a direct effect on the world’s oceans.”

The NCA report added “ocean acidification makes water more corrosive, reducing the capacity of marine organisms with shells or skeletons made of calcium carbonate (such as corals, krill, oysters, clams, and crabs) to survive, grow, and reproduce, which in turn will affect the marine food chain.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported “ocean acidification poses substantial risks to marine ecosystems, especially polar ecosystems and coral reefs, associated with impacts on the physiology, behavior, and population dynamics of individual species from phytoplankton to animals.”

The IPCC says ocean acidification, along with warming, decreased oxygen levels and pollution “can lead to interactive, complex, and amplified impacts for species and ecosystems.”

Assessing how acidification is changing the world’s oceans is hugely important to the survival of humankind. According to the United Nations, more than three billion people depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods. The UN also says the market value of marine and coastal resources and industries is estimated at $3 trillion per year or about 5 per cent of global GDP.

Some people call ocean acidification “that other CO2 problem,” Kohfeld said, “and it’s an example of how climate change is more than just a higher temperature.”

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.

This past week was, in the continually escalating climate change war, one of great disconnect, confusion and uncertainty.

While there is no doubt that humankind finds itself in the middle of a much-needed transition away from the business-as-usual model of burning fossil fuels, powerful and manipulative forces continue to resist a growing movement to use greener, cleaner energy.

Many of those sinister forces are headquartered, or operate in, the United States which boasts the world’s greatest economy while being the second worst emitter of greenhouse gasses after China.

So it came as a shock to many mainstream media outlets this week when the third U.S. National Climate Assessment report said Tuesday that climate change is already negatively affecting the United States and the future looks even more dismal if coordinated mitigation and adaptation efforts are not immediately pursued.

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” notes the massive NCA report.

Looking at impacts on human health, water, energy, transportation, agriculture, forests, and ecosystems across the country’s eight major regions, the report painted a bleak picture for the U.S. and the rest of the world if governments don’t quickly agree to aggressively fight climate change at the domestic and international level.

After all, the saying goes, an atmosphere overheated and polluted by emissions from oil, coal and gas doesn’t respect national borders. This is one fight we all share and the chickens are coming home to roost.

An urgency to act did not escape the eye of The New York Times editorial board which, after reading the NCA report, zeroed in on just three regional climate change catastrophes in the making.

Singling out the “the climate-change deniers in Congress and industry allies” for contributing to climate change, the editorial noted the southwestern part of the country is expected to get drier, see increased wildfires and reduced agricultural harvests. The eastern seaboard, meanwhile, will have more destructive storms and higher sea levels. And forests will die in Alaska while more permafrost melts, speeding up the release of greenhouse gasses such as methane.

But it wasn’t all doom and gloom.

Observers were saying the report may give President Barack Obama more power to deal with climate change, the environment and energy issues through administrative amendments during his last 2.5 years in office. Indeed, the White House issued a media release saying the report underscores “the need for urgent action to combat the threats from climate change, protect American citizens and communities today, and build a sustainable future for our kids and grandkids.”

Two days later, the Carbon Tracker Initiative said investors could lose more than $1.1 trillion worth of investments to potentially unburnable fossil fuel deposits if governments act to fight climate change by agreeing the deposits need to stay in the ground.

The report identifies oil reserves in the Arctic, oilsands and in deepwater deposits at the high end of the carbon/capital cost curve. Projects in this category “make neither economic nor climate sense” and won’t fit into a carbon-constrained world looking to limit oil-related emissions, Carbon Tracker stated in a press release.

In addition, the report emphasized the high risk of Alberta oilsands investment, noting the reserves “remain the prime candidate for avoiding high cost projects” due to the region’s landlocked position and limited access to market.

“Our analysis also shows that if demand for oil is not substantially reduced we are clearly heading for a level of warming far in excess of 2°C,” the report said, “which reveals that there is no free lunch here for investors.

“Either policy and technological tipping points will reduce demand in line with our analysis or we will face levels of warming described as catastrophic by many.”

Speaking of potential catastrophes, Queensland on Thursday approved what would become the largest coal mine in Australia despite fears that an accompanying port could damage the Great Barrier Reef which is already seeing corals dying from climate change developments.

If that approval — which still needs to be given the go-ahead by the national government before the $16-billion mine can be built — seems strange, it’s also worth knowing that almost 80 per cent of Queensland is now dealing with a prolonged drought that some are linking to climate change caused by burning fossil fuels.

Lastly, but certainly not least, Lloyd’s of London, the world’s oldest insurance company, now wants insurers to incorporate future climate change scenarios into their business models since damage from extreme weather-related events have cost a reported $200 billion over the past 10 years.

On Thursday, Lloyd’s released a report saying that extreme weather cost the insurance industry more than $127 billion in 2011 alone, making it the record year for natural catastrophe.

Trevor Maynard, leader of Lloyd’s exposure management and reinsurance team, said climate change is expected to continue to happen even if strong action is taken to cut greenhouse gases.

“The urgent need to mitigate carbon emissions remains as critical now as before,” Maynard added.

Image Credit: Tim J Keegan 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.

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

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

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

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

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

1. Oilsands Emissions

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

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

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

2. Carbon Capture and Storage

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

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

3. In Situ Recovery of Bitumen

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

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

4. Water Withdrawals

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

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

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

5. Air Quality Monitoring

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

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

6. Tailings

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

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

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

7. Land Reclamation

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

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

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

8. Potential Impacts and Environmental Monitoring

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

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

Images: Kris Krug via flickr

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