Friends of the Lubicon
PO Box 444 Stn D,
Etobicoke ON M9A 4X4
Tel: (416) 763-7500
Email: fol (at) tao (dot) ca
www.lubicon.ca
February 3, 2008
This past Friday -- in an increasingly impressive show of oil company solidarity -- two more energy companies submitted a "Statement of Intention to Participate" in the Alberta Utilities Commission hearing on TransCanada's new jumbo pipeline through unceded Lubicon Territory. Both companies predictably support construction of the pipeline.
The two companies are Cargill Limited and Nexen Inc.
Cargill's Statement says "Cargill is a major shipper on Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. and as such has an interest in the proceedings of this application. (Nova Gas Transmission -- NGTL -- is a wholly owned subisdiary of TransCanada.)
Nexen's Statement says "Nexen is a producer and shipper on the NGTL system, as well as a producer in Alberta's oil sands and therefore has a direct and relevant interest in the outcome of any proceeding relating to the "Application".
Concerned about the growing social and economic disintegration resulting from turning Alberta into a province-wide boom town, others, including ex-Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed and Alberta Federation of Labour President Gil McGowan, are calling for some semblance of rationality in the headlong rush to exploit the tar sands. McGowan pointed out that the Alberta government "has not made even a token attempt to articulate a plan for the pace of oilsands development". Mr. Lougheed repeated his call for a slowdown of oilsands development saying "They should have never allowed so many of these projects to go ahead at the same time".
Mis-characterizing calls "to stop and think" current Alberta Premier Stelmach echoed the oil companies and warned about the consequences of a "total shutdown". "If that's what they're asking for", Premier Stelmach said, "you devastate Alberta's economy, you devastate Canada's economy, you put at risk hundreds of billions of dollars of investment, and there won't be one social program that's going to be alive, anywhere". (Makes one wonder how Alberta managed to enjoy low unemployment and huge financial surpluses before the new multi-billion dollar tar sands bonanza began.)
Sierrra Club spokesperson Lindsay Telfer rightly points out that slowing exploitation of the tar sands in a province with an already superheated economy doesn't equate with economic catastrophe and that Premier Stelmach is failing to take the frightful cost of severe environmental degradation into account.
Fort Chip resident Peter Cyprien -- resident of Fort Chip and Co-Chair of a coalition of First Nations, environmental organizations, scientists, health care employees, organized labour, faith communities and social justice groups called Keepers of the Althabasca River -- points out that his people are already paying the price of mindless resource exploitation. He says water from the river can no longer be drunk; fish caught in the river often have tumors and the moose are sick and can't be eaten
Putting all of this in a broader context is a commentary that appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail this past Friday (February 1st) -- Canada's only nationally read newspaper -- by an award-winning science, business and environment writer named Andrew Nikiforuk. The Nikiforuk commentary says, among other things:
- "Alberta's carbon-blind Premier, Ed Stelmach, has compared the oil sands to a fast moving car and says that he, for starters, isn't about to 'touch the brakes'. His controversial plan to lower climate warming gases by a paltry 14 per cent by 2050 not only makes good on his driving commitment but proves that the oil sands have become a runaway vehicle -- without a muffler either.
- "Thanks to Mr. Stelmach's baby-steps approach to carbon pollution, the world's largest energy project will continue to be the country's largest growing source of ice-melting and water-evaporating gases for years to come...Britain's Trndall Centre for Climate Change Research now estimates that the oil sands will account for 15% of Canada's total carbon emissions by 2020.
- "Government, scientific and industry reports consistently warn that oil sands development...has already produced what one oil sands executive recently called 'an environmental freak show' -- in the British publication 'Petroleum Economist', no less....
- The U. S. Energy Information Administration...reported in its 2006 Canada...brief that (Canada's) 'energy intensive developments such as the oil sands 'has led to serious environmental concerns, primarily regarding air pollution and climate change.
- "(Canadian) Parliament also knows that Alberta can't strip mine the boreal forest for carbon-rich bitumen without making a mess. Its 2007 report, the Oil Sands Toward Sustainable Development, dutifully noted that the volume of greenhouse pollutants released per barrel of was three times higher for the oil sands that the production of conventional oil.
- "The Parliamentary report also...(noted that)...Industry now takes an average of three barrels of potable water to produce one barrel of synthetic crude (this is an industry figure and the amount of fresh water really used is likely significantly higher).
- "(At the conservatively estimated rate of three barrels of water to produce one barrel of tar sands oil) this means the oil sands uses as much fresh water as the city of Calgary (2.3 billion barrrels) and could soon consume as much as the city of Toronto (3.3 billion barrels). The report added that 'people are wondering whether there is enough water in the river to provide the flow required to keep the ecosystem healthy' (Underlining added).
- "Then there's the issue of toxic waste water, an unfortunate byproduct of Appalachian-style open pit mining. More than a dozen dikes...now dot both sides of the Athabasca River. These waste ponds occupy 55 square kilometers of land and contain fish killers and cancer makers. The (Canadian) National Energy Board calls their management 'daunting'...
- "A 2007 report on rapid oil sands development for the Alberta government by former Deputy Minister (of the Alberta Environment Department) Doug Radke frankly admitted that Alberta's capacity to monitor and enforce (minimal) environmental requirements is 'inadequate'.
- Mr. Radke noted that as many as seven multibillion-dollar bitumen upgraders, all big carbon emitters, had been slated for construction along the North Saskatchewan River...Yet (the provincial Environment Department) hadn't the resources 'undertake a review' of their cumulative impact. Meanwhile recent industry studies conclude that the upgraders will occupy an area half the size of Edmonton (470 square kilometers) and consume nearly as much water as one million citizens by 2025. (Premier Stelmach's predecessor Ralph Klein said he didn't believe in planning -- that "planning kills entrepreneurship" and that "Communists plan".).
- "As a consequence the oil sands and Canada's energy security has truly become a brakeless Stelmach vehicle powered by dirty oil that increasingly behaves like a hit and run driver whenever climate or other inconvenient green things appear on the road.
Or -- more imminently -- when the Lubicons appear on the road.
Included below are copies of a couple of news articles bringing attention to the enormous environmental, social, health, and economic costs of runaway oil sands exploitation.
Andrew Nikiforuk
The Globe and Mail
February 1, 2008
(CALGARY) Alberta's carbon-blind Premier, Ed Stelmach, has compared the oil sands to a fast moving car and says that he, for starters, isn't about to "touch the brakes."
His controversial plan to lower Alberta's climate warming gases by a paltry 14 per cent by 2050 not only makes good on his driving commitment but proves that the oil sands have become a runaway vehicle -- without a reliable muffler either.
Thanks to Mr. Stelmach's baby-steps approach to carbon pollution, the world's largest energy project will continue to be the country's largest growing source of ice-melting and water-evaporating gases for years to come. In fact, even Britain's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research now estimates that the oil sands will account for 15 per cent of Canada's total carbon emissions by 2020.
But carbon isn't the only liability dogging the oil sands. Mr. Stelmach recently declared that there's a "myth" out there "that oil sands production comes at too high an environmental cost" and, well, he got that one wrong, too.
Government, scientific and industry reports consistently warn that oil sands development at 1.25-million barrels a day (and the plans are for 3-million a day) has already produced what one oil sands executive recently called "an environmental freak show" - in the British publication, Petroleum Economist, no less. Unlike Mr. Stelmach, our number one oil importer, the United States, clearly understands the scale of this eco drama. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, for instance, reported in its 2006 Canada country brief that the nation's "energy intensive developments" such as the oil sands "has led to serious environmental concerns, primarily regarding air pollution and climate change."
Parliament also knows that Alberta can't strip mine the boreal forest for carbon-rich bitumen without making a mess. Its 2007 report, The Oil Sands: Toward Sustainable Development, dutifully noted that the volume of greenhouse pollutants released per barrel was three times higher for the oil sands than the production of conventional oil.
The parliamentary report also addressed the project's liberal use of fresh water from the Athabasca River. Industry now takes an average of three barrels of potable water to produce one barrel of synthetic crude.
That means the oil sands uses as much water as the city of Calgary a year (2.3 billion barrels) and could soon consume as much as the city of Toronto (3.3 billion barrels). The report added that "people are wondering whether there is enough water in the river to provide the flow required to keep the aquatic ecosystem healthy." These people include 350,000 aboriginals who live downstream.
David Schindler, a University of Alberta professor and one of the world's foremost water ecologists, recently calculated that climate change alone now removes the same amount of water from the basin as a new oil sands mine every two years. Even Ottawa, in a report from Natural Resources Canada recognizes climate change as a "potentially serious threat to Canada's oil production."
Then there's the issue of toxic waste water, an unfortunate byproduct of Appalachian-style open pit mining. More than a dozen dikes, the size of Muskoka lakes, now dot both sides of the Athabasca River. These waste ponds occupy 55 square kilometres of land and contain fish killers and cancer makers. The National Energy Board calls their management "daunting" while Parliament views them as an "enormous challenge." A 2007 report on rapid oil sands development for the Alberta government by former environment deputy minister Doug Radke frankly admitted that Alberta's capacity to monitor and enforce environmental requirements is "inadequate."
Mr. Radke noted that as many as seven multibillion-dollar bitumen upgraders, all big carbon emitters, had been slated for construction along the North Saskatchewan River east of Edmonton in Alberta's industrial heartland. Yet Alberta Environment hadn't the resources "to undertake a review" of their cumulative impact. Meanwhile, recent industry studies conclude that the upgraders will occupy an area half the size of Edmonton (470 square kilometres) and consume nearly as much water as one million citizens by 2025.
And then comes issues as diverse as land reclamation, air pollution, groundwater contamination and acid rain. Alberta's government has chosen to deny or diminish these realities too.
As a consequence the oil sands and Canada's energy security has truly become a brakeless Stelmach vehicle powered by dirty oil that increasingly behaves like a hit and run driver whenever climate or other inconvenient green things appear on the road.
Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning writer on science, business and the environment
Hanneke Brooymans, With files from Jason Markusoff
The Edmonton Journal
Friday, February 01, 2008
A coalition of groups in Alberta called on the provincial government Thursday to stop approving oilsands projects.
The coalition represents a wide variety of interests: First Nations communities, environmental organizations, scientists, health-care employees, labour, faith communities and social justice groups.
They say the rapid pace of oilsands development has put too much of a strain on the quality of air, land, health and the economy in Alberta's communities.
They are running ads in newspapers in the home ridings of Premier Ed Stelmach in Vegreville, Environment Minister Rob Renner in Medicine Hat, and Energy Minister Mel Knight in Grande Prairie.
"It's time to stop and think!" reads the ad, which then goes on to list nine reasons to halt development.
Among the reasons is the overheated economy which causes inflation and shortages of health-care professionals, affordable housing and workers for critical infrastructure projects.
None of this is likely to abate, as Stelmach's government has not made a token attempt to articulate a plan for the pace of oilsands development, said Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour.
McGowan said he disagrees with the government's premise that if it limits development, it will hurt the economy.
"It's an example of being penny wise and pound foolish," he said.
While the gold rush of investment is making the province rich, it's not building a strong, diversified base, he said. Fostering an overheated economy prices us out of the market for more sustainable projects, McGowan said.
Former premier Peter Lougheed also repeated his call for a slowdown of oilsands development during an appearance Thursday on CBC's The Current.
Lougheed blamed former premier Ralph Klein for the runaway development.
"They should have never allowed so many of these projects to go ahead at the same time."
Now, Stelmach is caught because of pre-existing obligations, he said. It won't be something he can turn around overnight.
Asked about the call for a moratorium, Stelmach instead warned of the consequences of a "total shutdown." If that's what they're asking for, he said, "you devastate Alberta's economy, you devastate Canada's economy, you put at risk hundreds of billions of dollars of investment, and there won't be one social program that's going to be alive, anywhere."
Lindsay Telfer of the Sierra Club said it irks her to see Stelmach equate slowing development with economic catastrophe. "He doesn't think about the true cost of environmental degradation."
Peter Cyprien, a resident of Fort Chipewyan, said his people are already paying the cost. People used to be able to drink from the Athabasca River, but now nobody does, said Cyprien, co-chairman of the recently formed Keepers of the Athabasca.
Fish pulled from the river often have tumours, while people who kill moose "find sickness in them" and so don't eat the meat, he said. "So they're taking our livelihood from us."
Alberta Environment spokesman Jim Law said there "are a large number of safeguards in place to protect the environment and we don't proceed with oilsands development at the cost of the environment."
The government's new climate change plan includes a focus on carbon dioxide emissions from the oilsands that will result in emissions being less from oilsands production than from conventional oil production, Law said.
hbrooymans@thejournal.canwest.com
© The Edmonton Journal 2008
fol-request at masses.tao.ca