EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ottawa Wades Into Oilsands Debate
OTTAWA - The House of Commons environment committee is wading into a raging public relations war over the Alberta oilsands with a study of the industry's impact on water resources.
A National Geographic article highlighting the environmental toll of the Alberta oilsands is a crippling blow to the industry, columnist Don Martin writes.
(photograph: Rick MacWilliam, Edmonton Journal) The MP who proposed the study is Montreal-area Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia. In an interview, he said he assured Conservative MPs - sensitive about an industry in the heart of their political bastion - that the study "is not about a witch hunt" in a sector of the energy industry that some environmentalists are campaigning to have shut down.
He said hearings expected to begin Thursday are aimed at reconciling conflicting reports linking oilsands operations to damage and risk to the vast, connected water basins of the Athabasca and Mackenzie rivers - the source of one fifth of Canada's fresh water.
Scarpaleggia says MPs also need to clarify the federal government's role as an arbiter in potential disputes among provincial and territorial governments over future water shortages or damages.
The water basins span about 20 per cent of Canada's land mass, spilling across three provinces and two territories: Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Yukon.
The committee aims to "put a spotlight" on federal government responsibility in a jurisdictional jungle that involves some overlap with those governments as well as treaty obligations to First Nations.
The study is "absolutely critical" says Arctic energy expert Peggy Holroyd, lead author of a recent Pembina Institute report urging suspension of new oilsands lease sales until stronger rules are in place to protect water in northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
The Dene Nation of the Northwest Territories also called for a halt to oilsands expansion two weeks ago, accusing the federal government of "colossal mismanagement" and failure to protect water, fish and migratory species.
Oilsands production is a water-intensive industry. Strip mining depletes wetlands and a vast volume of fresh water is used as steam to extract bitumen from underground wells. According to one widely cited figure, three barrels of fresh water are consumed on average for each barrel of oil produced.
As well as its consumption of massive amounts of groundwater, the oilsands industry has been faulted for failing to recycle the water on a mass scale and for dumping contaminated water into massive tailing ponds that would cause an ecological disaster if breached.
"There's a big dispute as to whether the tailing ponds are leaking or not," Scarpaleggia said. "The industry will say no, they're not, and the environmentalists say, 'Well we have evidence that they are.' So let's find out what the truth is.
"They drill around the ponds to see if there's water seeping through and the industry says the water is not contaminated. But the environmentalists say (they) have evidence that it is. As a legislator, my interest is to find out what the truth is."
Scarpaleggia sees no contradiction between the study and a recent campaign by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to assure the public, notably in the West where the Grits have little support, that his party regards the oilsands as an engine of the national economy. Ignatieff mentioned the water issue in his first such speech, the MP said.
By singling out water, Scarpaleggia hopes to show that Liberals are not jumping on an anti-oilsands bandwagon that recently has focused on the industry's high level of greenhouse gas emissions.
"When you're talking about greenhouse gas emissions and the oilsands, you get a sense that Albertans just tune out now. They've been hit over the head too much with it," he said.
By contrast, he said, there is evidence that Albertans are widely concerned about the fate of their water supplies. "Here's an issue that doesn't alienate Albertans because Albertans are as concerned about the impact of oilsands on water as I am or (as) any other Canadian."
The first witnesses expected at the committee are federal officials from the departments of Fisheries, Environment and Natural Resources. Prominent non-government experts will be called, as will authorities on constitutional jurisdiction.
"As climate changes begin to impact on Canada's water resources and there's competition for water, there are going to be some interprovincial issues, some cross-border issues within Canada, and I would think the federal government has a responsibility to monitor these issues as a potential arbiter in the future," Scarpaleggia said.
"We want to bring in experts on governance. They'll tell us what the federal government's responsibilities would be if there are disagreements among the provinces."
Edmonton MP Linda Duncan, the New Democratic Party environment critic, said she welcomes the study as a chance to show how the federal government "has dropped the ball" in protecting the environment and human health in the region.
"The only reason the federal government has been held to account and is delivering any vestige of their mandate is because of community advocacy," Duncan said.
"It's fallen on the shoulders of quite underprivileged First Nations who are downstream and downwind of those facilities and, to their credit, environmental organizations in Alberta who have stepped up to the plate and shared their expertise."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show AllPolls show that 64 percent of canadians want a halt to further expansion to the Tar sands as a source of oil until more enviroemnetaly ways can be found to develop it.
These polls were taken AFTER the latest economic downturn.
These same Polls indicated that even amonst Albertans some 47 percent want to see expansionhalted and more rigorous studies down, this numbering increasing poll by poll.
Furthermore well over 70 percent of canadians in polls nationwide do NOT want to see the latests economic downturn be used as a reason not to halt and or slow development of our resources.
The stewardship of our enviroment remains one of the voters major concerns far shead of isses like terrorism and health care.
Harpers Conservative continue to push the line that protection of the Enviroment will cost us economically leading to job losses and less growth.
The Canadian Public are light years ahead of the Federal Government here and this persistence in following the agenda of big oil is fundamentaly un-democratic.
The peoples of the First nations took the lead in halting massive development in Canada's north without clear and effective stewardship of the enviroment.
All PROGRESSIVE Canadians should take up this cause. It one of the most important issues facing us as a nation.
We need sane policies . We need to protect our enviroment.
This problem cannot be solved easily as long as oil and mineral wealth are privately owned. There are many countries where oil and other minerals that are basically mined out of the ground are nationalized - which means, everyone in the country owns them. If you think about it, it is exactly as it should be - because these are different from any wealth that is created by human ingenuity. Albertans are so like Texans in many respects - and just as nobody messes with Texas, in Canada, nobody messes with Alberta. So much so that the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff has actually said that supporting the oilsands is a "national unity issue". What does he mean by that? Does he mean that Alberta will threaten to breakaway from Canada if the rest of the country does not support the oil sands? He needs to clarify. Ignatieff is not going to be much different from Stephen Harper, although he may put on some grandiose pretensions to that effect. There is not much hope for Canada in the near future - because it is very likely that Stephen Harper (whose role model was most likely GWB until recently before he dumped Bush) will be replaced by Ignatieff - who actually supported the Iraqi invasion, btw (when the Prime Minister of the day, Chretien, decided to opt out). But I digress. My point is that the Canadian government has hitched itself to the laggards when it comes to the environment - such as the US and Australia, only to find that even the Australians changed course - by signing on to the Kyoto treaty after Kevin Rudd became PM. And now Obama talks of Copenhagen - where the next treaty will be signed by the end of 2009. So Harper is scrambling to get on the environment bandwagon now. It almost looks like a classic offside trap!
Oil from tar sands is only economically viable when the price of crude oil goes over $80 a barrel. A commitment to oil from tar sands may therefore be a commitment to artificially maintain the cost of crude oil above $80 a barrel.
Oil companies are also focused on the Rocky Mountains in the United States, so this isn't just a Canadian issue.
The 80 dollars a barrel claim is not entirely correct. The EXISTING plants can get that oil out and profit with 14 dollar a barrel oil.
Where the 80$$ comes in is when they factor in the construction of a New Plant. This is a huge up front investment.
Once the plant is up and running they make that investment back in rather short order IF the price is around 80 bucks. If the price is much lower it takes them many more years before they start to turn a profit.
"The EXISTING plants can get that oil out and profit with 14 dollar a barrel oil."
That's 40 dollar a barrel oil. Sounds similar in audio.
Oil from tar sands is NEVER economical! How in the world can you justify destroying the environment in order to obtain energy and make private owners rich? Oh, wait, that's exactly what we've been doing....
We waited way too long. WE should have been working on new inventions decades ago and slowly replacing oil and coal. Now the change has to be done drastically and so fast in order to be effective, that the economic argument is thrown in by people as an excuse, yes it would affect the economy, if we did maKe the real changes we need to make. But those who use this argument do not UNDERSTAND THE COST OF NOT, I SAY NOT, MAKING THE CHANGES FAST ENOUGH. I say say it's too late. It's too late because now we have to give up our cushy life styles in order to make this work. Because if we go with the plan we have, it's not enough, fast enough. Get your candles ready. Get your soap root ready.
DRASTIC CHANGES ARE NEEDED AND THERE ISN'T A CHOICE ANYMORE...iT'S COLD TURKEY TIME...
Stewardship isnt the right word. It implies humans are here to "manage" Nature.
Worms and pollinating bees do that.
Humans just have to stop causing trouble and destroying things for the sake of destroying things, which is their nature.
The Inuit are included in that.
Remember that they sell their hunting licenses to non Inuit.
They also support trapping for the non Inuit fur industry.
And tribes in Manitoba capture Beluga whales for the aquarium trade. When criticism of this practice was mentioned, one tribe member said with contempt, "we have the right to slaughter all of them if we want! The creator gave them to us!"
They want to keep killing wildlife like 2000 years ago, but they want modern technology and comforts.
Hypocrites and supremacist bigots can be found under any skin colour.
It would be nice if you could get a debate between say a real evironmentalist and a climatologist and a politician and say a business tycoon,(oil or coal). This even sounds simplistic, the way I said it. It needs to be set up well and not just one, but a series of them. Let the debate come out. Let's really hear all of the fight. Each side gets to present it's arguments. I think that the American people will get more of the truth. When they hear the issues that the environmentalist and climate scientist make,like how we really have no time left to fool around, there might be a sea change in what is expected as far as life style is concerned. wHEN THEY HEAR THE PATHETIC ARGUMENTS OF THE ECONOMIC SIDE,WELL... I would hope that people would choose to protect the world they live on.
THe protest in D.C this Monday says alot. If I read right it's mostly young people. They may be the ones who "get it " the most. It's time to shake things up and GET SOMETHING DONE.
TAR sands, TAR sands, TAR sands. Get it? This isn't oily sand. It's sticky tar with some soil and sand mixed in. Oil sands sounds like something you can just run through a filter and use, which is what the oil industry wants it to sound like. TAR sands require lots of energy to heat up the tar to easy through the process of extracting the oil. Don't let the PR hacks for the oil industry get away with their word games.
The best way to protest the use of tar sands is to promote wind and solar energy. Electrical energy from those sources in conjunction with biotechnological sources to replace petrochemicals is the foreseeable path to a sustainable future.
I've even seen proposals for putting in solar at the tar sands using electrolysis for hydrogenation and reducing the carbon footprint of existing plants. The Feds should lean on Alberta to declare a moratorium on new plants in this interlude where all new plants have been shelved due to the economy.
As a Canadian I think most of my fellow citizens are too lazy and apathetic to really care enough about the environment. We are one of the biggest per capita polluters in the world, and given the cool response to the Liberal's Green Plan during the last election I do not believe what polls say about public opinion and the environment. Only international pressure and economics will ever force your average Canadian to do something tangible about the oil sands and pollution. Canadians are environmental slobs.
Existing facilities at Ft Mac can produce synthetic crude for $23 a barrel. No merchandiser sells anything where the material costs are more than 30% of the selling price. That's why $40 barrels don't cut it. It's better business to leave it in the ground until oil prices go back up again. A hiatus that slows down the production of that washing water would be very good for the environment also, give the settling ponds time to settle. Bitumen is not a really good source of fluid gasoline products, neither is coal.What the industry needs is that really easy to get at light crude under the sands in the middle east.
Alberta tar sands will not bail anybody out, least of all Albertan's. The slowdown on building new facilities really pisses off the barely high school educated laborers who have been having a great old time with those $100,000 to $140,000 (CAD) per year jobs. Big dissapointment to have to limp along at $30,000. Lots of them have gone back east already.