A plan without enforcement is no plan at all
Alberta has released a new set of rules that it says are designed to limit water use from the Athabasca River. In addition, companies will be expected to diminish the growth of tailings ponds (pools of wastewater from bitumen extraction) and ensure that these ponds have been reclaimed within ten years of the end of a mining project. While these new rules are being trumpeted as a way of improving the environmental sustainability of the oil sands in relation to Alberta’s critical fresh water resources, many are critical of this plan.
Kyle Fawcett, Alberta’s Minister of Environmental and Sustainable Resource Development, stated that the new water-use limits “are dramatic cutbacks for all operators but they are essential in protecting the lower Athabasca.” Yet the true challenge here is not about setting limits or creating frameworks. The challenge for Alberta is to actually stand by them, develop mechanisms for enforcement, and prosecute breaches.
The tremendous use of fresh water by oil sands producers has been well documented. In 2011, operations used approximately 1.7 million cubic metres of water—a figure equivalent to the residential water use of 1.7 million Canadians. In situ petroleum production used in the oil sands requires the use of heated water. At present, these techniques use approximately 0.8 to 1.7 barrels of water in order to fully extract and upgrade a barrel of oil. Processing bitumen requires 0.4 barrels of water for every barrel of bitumen produced. Members of Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (including Suncor Energy Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell plc) have pledged to halve freshwater use in processing to 0.2 barrels per barrel of bitumen by 2022.
In addition, Alberta’s seventy-seven square miles of tailings ponds have been one of the industry’s most difficult environmental challenges. For many, they are seen as a symbol of the industry’s disregard for the environment. These ponds are more than an eyesore. Recent studies have revealed that they release more than one tonne of toxic hydrocarbons into the air every year. As of yet there is little evidence to suggest that Alberta’s regulations will seriously impede the expansion of these ponds.
It is without question that Alberta is heavily reliant on oil revenue. Because of this interconnection, the fate of Alberta is inextricably linked to the fate of oil producers. Clear evidence of this has been the dramatic weakening of Alberta’s economy in the wake of the recent plummeting of crude oil prices. In February alone, Alberta’s unemployment rate rose by 1.2 per cent as the province lost fourteen thousand jobs. News outlets have reported that these figures are only the beginning.
In this context, where economic stability and government revenues are dependent on one industry above all others, how can the government expect to be taken seriously when it makes proclamations about increasing environmental standards? It seems clear that oil producers will be well aware that at this time the government will not be in a position to jeopardize its primary benefactor. If we accept that there is a trade-off between the economy and the environment, Alberta has made its priorities quite clear. With new projects having been approved, bitumen production in the oil sands is projected to more than double its current rate by 2030. History shows that the government’s enthusiasm for enforcement of environmental regulations has not matched its enthusiasm for approving projects.
In September of 2014, it was revealed that the government would not press charges following Suncor’s 2011 discharge of “deleterious effluent” into the Athabasca River. The discharge in question failed “acute lethality testing” thirty-nine times. Failing these tests meant that more than fifty per cent of fish exposed to it died. Although the investigation did not find malice on the part of Suncor, we might question whether pressing charges and pursuing a full investigation might have been more valuable than absolving them of guilt before their arguments of due diligence could have been scrutinized in court.
Additionally, with respect to the province’s new guidelines, although the province has been marketing them as a way forward, in truth they seem to represent a clawing back of standards. In implementing these new rules the government is retracting Directive 74, which had been in place since 2009. According to an Alberta government website, those rules required companies to “reduce tailings and provide target dates for closure and reclamation of ponds,” and “[laid] out timelines for operators to process fluid tailings at the same rate they produce them, [in order to] eliminate growth in fluid tailings.” Yet these rules were not enforced. In 2013, when companies missed the first set of deadlines, the regulator backed down and refused to impose any penalties. In fact, the new rules are said to have been brought in specifically because companies were persistently unable to comply with these old rules.
One important challenge is that the technology required in order for oil sands producers to meet these guidelines does not exist yet. Fawcett has acknowledged that compliance with the rules will require oil producers to develop new technologies, and invest in new procedures that will allow them to reduce tailings.
Certainly there is cause to believe that producers may see the value in improving their environmental records. Negative press around the environmental destruction caused by the oil sands has created serious public relations problems for those with investments in its projects. Most notable of these are the substantial delays that the American leg of the Keystone XL pipeline has experienced. They may as well take it upon themselves to try to meet the new guidelines.
Unfortunately, given the weakness that we have seen on the part of Alberta’s government as far as enforcement is concerned, one is led to believe that that this is the only hope we have that environmental damage will be minimized. Despite the recent rhetoric to the contrary, the Alberta government has given us little reason to believe that it will support environmental protection when such protection is at odds with the interests of producers.