'Green' initiatives in Canada's natural resource extraction industry

Canada has failed to live up to its commitments

Written by Megan Howes

Canada will not meet its goal set in the Copenhagen Accord to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. The natural gas extraction industry is a key contributor, notably Alberta's oil sands, which ranks fifth globally in sites with fastest growing emissions. The world needs power, and this industry will continue to play a big role in the energy mix. However, growing awareness of environmental degradation is changing public attitudes about Canada's environmental reputation. While fossil fuel extraction makes up a large proportion of the Canadian economy, the industry value does not account for environmental and social costs.

Environmental damage associated with natural resource extraction falls under two main categories: global pollution (by GHG emission) and regional impact. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord explicitly recognizes that technology must have a key role in GHG reduction. Steps in this direction have been taken within Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) to improve energy efficiency during  production. One example is cogeneration, where a single fuel source is used to produce both electrical and thermal energy simultaneously. This energy efficient process is achieved by using the wasted heat from electricity generation for various applications such as heating for industrial processes. Unfortunately, Canada only produces 7 per cent of its energy in this way.

Environmentalists and industry leaders alike have touted carbon capture and storage as a potentially game-changing new technology to stop the release of GHGs during production. The technique involves capturing carbon dioxide emitted from industrial processes, transporting it, and permanently storing it deep underground. It holds some promise and could possibly work on a scale large enough to meaningfully lower emissions, but implementation in Canada is still in elementary stages and will not be  economically feasible without significant government investment.

Policy is another way that governments are ‘trying’ to combat climate change. The province of Alberta mandates that facilities emitting more than 100,000 tons of GHG annually either reduce emissions by 12 per cent, or pay $15 per extra ton of carbon dioxide emitted into a clean energy investment fund.  This price is low enough that it is more economical for companies to pay for extra pollution than to curb their emissions, making this 'green' policy largely ineffective.

Though both the government and oil companies have developed various ‘green’ technological innovations in the past two decades, emissions per barrel have only been reduced by about a quarter.

One of the key environmental issues posed by the extraction process is the leftover mixture of water, sand, and residual bitumen, known as tailings. These tailings are stored in large water basins. Because tailings take decades to treat and solidify, efforts are made to reduce pond size and restoration time. For example, Suncor Energy has innovated the Tailings Reduction Operations (TRO) process, which can expedite landscape recovery by up to 20 years. By adding an inert chemical clarifying agent (specifically a polymer flocculent) the clay particles join together, separating from the water. In 2010, the Wapisiw Lookout in Alberta became the first site to be reclaimed and revegetated when Suncor re-vegetated land, which since 1967 had been "Pond 1."

Though both the government and oil companies have developed various ‘green’ technological innovations in the past two decades, emissions per barrel have only been reduced by about a quarter. Although per unit emissions have dropped, overall production is higher now, so the widespread idea of lowered emissions is misleading and the actual decrease per unit makes little difference.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers stateon their website that developing oil and gas is "in the interests of all Canadians," but at what cost, and how are these benefits distributed?  The strength of Indigenous communities are inextricably linked to proper ecosystem functioning. They rely on wildlife, land, and water for hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, harvesting, and ceremonial uses. The extraction industry alters the health, quality, and availability of traditional resources by destroying wetlands, clear-cutting forests, inducing seismic activity, and causing heavy vehicle traffic. As a result of these cumulative impacts, the woodland caribou population on the east side of the Athabasca River is only 30 per cent of what it was less than twenty years ago. Other species such as the whooping crane and Canada warbler are also at risk. Commenting on caribou decline, Chief Vern Janvier of the Chipewyan Prairie Dene First Nation said in apress release, “Extinction of caribou would mean the extinction of our people.”

Indigenous communities have passed down intimate knowledge of local ecology over centuries, which has allowed these communities to thrive in harsh environments. Regional impacts coupled with climate change threaten this key facet of Indigenous livelihood and identity. This manifests itself as unpredictable precipitation and temperature patterns, susceptibility to invasive species, native species loss, changing animal ranges and migrations, and loss of sea ice for northern Inuit communities.

Because traditional food use is a sign of community strength, elders are concerned about the shift toward a wage economy, and younger generations' increasing reliance on processed market food. Such a rapid transition in this direction has caused an increase in heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases. There are significant risks and economic opportunities associated with this complex, multidimensional issue. Not all communities, nor all community members, agree on the best way forward.

While 'green' initiatives and policies are a small step in the right direction, the extraction industry impacts Indigenous communities from every angle. Lowering carbon emissions won't address deforestation, species loss, or social fragmentation. As Thomas Berger pointed out in a 1977 report, Canadian natural resources are a frontier, but are also embedded in a homeland.