I recently went looking to see what kinds of plans were in place in case of an emergency involving 840 million cubic metres (equivalent to 330,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools) of toxic liquid tailings waste deposited by oil sands mines north of Fort McMurray . The problem is, instead of finding what I was looking for, I was sent on a wild goose chase, leading me to wonder: Does anyone know what happens if something goes wrong?
For 36 hours this past weekend, a stream of high-temperature water and oil shot 12 metres into the air after a wellhead blew out at an in situ oil sands site just eight kilometres from the town of Conklin in northeastern Alberta. This incident points to the fact that in situ, contrary to industry claims, is not a benign or risk-free extraction method.
A vigorous debate is occurring in the U.S. over the use of oil from oil sands and particularly about a proposed pipeline, the Keystone, that would transport that oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf coast. As the debate unfolds, an appropriate question to be asking is: How should Canada respond?
As the Enbridge Gateway oil sands pipeline proposal lurches toward the environmental assessment process, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell is on record saying: "Enbridge has a proposal which is going through a process . . . It will include the most rigorous environmental regime there is anywhere in North America."
While it sounds nice, the reality is that the increasingly controversial pipeline will be reviewed by a Joint Review Panel established by the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. And if the Mackenzie Gas Project is any indication, there are some very real problems with how the federal government is making decisions about major energy projects.
More than two years after 1,600 ducks died in Syncrude's Aurora tailings lake, the oil sands operator has been found guilty in a high-profile court case that almost never happened. Since then, the amount of tailings (the toxic liquid waste produced by the oil sands extraction process) has steadily increased in volume by 200 million litres, or 80 Olympic-sized swimming pools, every day to now cover an area of 170 km2. It raises the question: Did the ducks die in vain?
At the same time as they are fighting low carbon fuel standards, oil sands proponents are also heavily engaged in a campaign to convince the public that their greenhouse gas emissions are essentially no different from other crude oils. They can’t have it both ways.
Kitamaat Village, B.C. — Sometimes it takes tar balls washing up on beaches, as the people of the Gulf coast are experiencing due to the BP oil spill, before we really get the environmental risk we've allowed to threaten our land, air and water.
But that's not the case here on B.C.'s North Coast, in the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest and home to a growing opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway oil sands pipeline.
While oil sands mining is set to expand for decades, in situ techniques are expected to surpass mining by 2017, changing the face of oil sands production. Industry has argued in situ is a less impactful form of production, but we've done our homework and the results don't support industry claims.
Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and Environment Minister Jim Prentice have crafted a new message, touting the oil sands as the safe alternative to offshore development in the wake of BP's oil spill. They're saying it loud and proud - that Alberta's oil sands are the responsibly developed, safe alternative to offshore development.
This week Premier Ed Stelmach jet set his way to Washington, D.C. He's talking oil sands and based on the premier's recent statements, he might be inclined to overpromise (and under-deliver).
Just last month, Stelmach suggested Alberta would eliminate tailings ponds: "It means we're going to have to force - when I say force, we're going to get more aggressive - and work with companies presently in open pit mining to move to either dry tailings or develop that resource without wet tailings ponds."
The day after Stelmach's assertions, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) approved Syncrude's Mildred Lake and Aurora tailings plans despite the fact that they fail to meet the requirements set out in Directive 074 - to reduce the volume of liquid tailings.
I had a little bit of U.S.-envy as I read an article describing a delay by our neighbours to the south in leasing land for natural gas production while the greenhouse gas implications of the decision were considered. I was envious because Alberta doesn't follow any such process for oil sands development.
Some time this month we passed the one million mark for downloads of our reports identifying the environmental impacts associated with oil sands development and their solutions.
It's official: the unabashed oil sands PR blitz is in full swing. It's image, not impacts that industry is addressing, and that's a problem.
A chorus of influential insiders is starting to sing the same tune: the oil sands industry must improve and move beyond PR.
I was pleasantly surprised last week by Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner's opening comments at the Water for Life Conference in Calgary. There's just one problem: the minister's talk doesn't seem to match the government's actions.
While Renner said protecting the environment is critical to the way we do business, the province continues to approve project after project in the oil sands, without ever stopping to consider the cumulative effects of all of that development.
I've worked at Pembina for four years now — long enough to know that this isn't the type of organization that jumps on bandwagons. So, it was with more than a little consideration that we added our name to an ad printed in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday.
On the 21st anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, dozens of First Nations, along with environmental organizations and prominent individuals, joined forces to draw attention to the risk of an oil spill in B.C.'s coastal waters should the Enbridge Northern Gateway oil sands pipeline proceed.
We knew our first-ever report card on in situ oil sands impacts released Wednesday would garner some attention and hoped it would spark discussion about solutions to address the growing environmental impacts of deep oil sands production. Sure enough, the report gained media attention across North America and a flurry of responses from politicians.
Over the next 15 years an anticipated $379 billion US will be invested by energy companies in Alberta's oil sands. An impressive figure, but a report released today reveals this investment could prove more economically, environmentally and socially rewarding if diverted to other opportunities.
First, it was the ducks and now it's the Na'vi: it's shaping up to be a tough week for the oil sands industry.
Already dealing with disturbing videos of ducks struggling in tailings lakes, which have emerged during Syncrude's trial, today the spotlight intensified as environmental and First Nations groups launched an ad in the Oscar edition of Hollywood's Variety magazine. Drawing parallels between the wildly popular movie Avatar (and its native people, the Na'vi) and the oil sands development unfolding in northeastern Alberta, the ad serves to further damage the image of the oil sands. This at a time when the Edmonton Journal was already commenting that the oil sands' image is "back in tar."
It's been almost two years since 1,606 ducks died in one of Syncrude's northern Alberta tailings lakes. After the incident, we heard an apology from Syncrude - the sincerity of which can now be questioned given their bizarre decision to plead not guilty in court.
















