Canada’s largest greenhouse gas capture and storage project should move forward without going through an environmental assessment and without an impact study. Environmentalists also denounce the lack of examination of the risks of this 16 billion dollar project developed by the tar sands industry which could receive significant federal public funding.
Pathways Alliance, the lobby that represents most of the companies in the sector, wants to build a network of pipelines in Alberta that would be used to capture CO emissions2 produced by oil exploitation in the Fort McMurray region, then transporting them over 400 kilometers and then burying them underground.
Steps are already underway for this project, and the group of oil companies has launched an appeal to pipeline manufacturers for the next steps. Ultimately, more than twenty industrial complexes could be connected to this carbon capture and storage (CCS) network.
The goal is to capture 22 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year by the end of the decade, which is equivalent to 10% of emissions from oil and gas development in Canada in 2022. The industry sees this as a way to maintain production growth for years to come. Oil sands reserves are estimated at more than 160 billion barrels.
The Alberta government, which is in favor of this megaproject, has decided not to subject it to the completion of an “environmental impact study”. According to what the Alberta Energy Regulator explains in a written response, the project has been analyzed and it would not require additional assessment. However, provincial government authorizations are required for the various components, such as the pipeline network.
Absence of the federal government
Could the federal government require an assessment of risks and potential effects? Proponents must “check” whether their project must be subject to review under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), responds the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC).
“To date, the AEIC has not received any information indicating that this proposal includes designated concrete activities that would make it subject to the LEI,” indicates the organization, emphasizing that subsequent steps could change the situation, but without specify which ones. “The proponent must evaluate its proposal to determine whether it is subject to the IAA. He is invited to contact the AEIC so that we can help him verify his interpretation” of the “list of projects” subject to federal evaluation.
The federal body indicates, however, that “carbon capture and storage facilities are not explicitly described” in this list, as is the pipeline network, since it will not cross the border between two provinces.
In response to questions from DutyPathways Alliance affirms for its part that “a federal impact assessment is not required” since the project will be located “entirely” in the territory of Alberta and that it would not include elements subject to the LEI. The oil lobby adds that it itself carries out “studies” which focus in particular on environmental issues.
For the Environmental Defense organization, the absence of an evaluative process involving the carrying out of an impact study is unacceptable. “Alberta’s refusal to assess this megaproject represents a total abdication of leadership [environnemental] », Deplores Allen Braude, associate director of communications, while simultaneously asking for federal intervention.
“The size of the project is enormous, and it has potentially devastating and irreversible impacts,” he emphasizes. It highlights the risks for the environment and human health in the event of a CO leak.2 during pipeline transport, particularly in the event of a “rupture”. Such an incident also occurred in the United States in 2020, leading to evacuations, hospitalizations and long-term repercussions on the health of certain residents in the area.
Mr. Braude also considers it necessary that the question of very long-term management of these storage sites, supposed to sequester greenhouse gases forever, be evaluated. It is all the more important, according to him, that in the event of a leak, significant quantities of CO2 could be released into the atmosphere.
Public funding
The International Energy Agency and several scientists repeat that the possible capture of part of the emissions linked to production is not a solution to combat the climate crisis, particularly in a context where there is an urgent need avoid the collapse of the global climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which recognizes the need for the development of CCS, insists for its part on the absolute necessity of substantially reducing the use of oil and gas.
The global fossil fuel industry, for its part, says it is very confident, and is banking heavily on CCS projects to reduce its emissions without reducing its production. No less than 480 representatives linked to such projects are present at the UN climate conference (COP29), according to a review by the renowned British daily The Guardian.
The Canadian delegation itself includes representatives who promote this technology, including three people from the Pathways Alliance, which brings together Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus, ConocoPhillips, Imperial Oil, MEG Energy and Suncor.
Before being forced to modify its website due to a proposed federal advertising law that would require companies to provide proof of their environmental claims, the lobby claimed that the CSC would contribute to achieving “carbon neutrality” in the oil sands sector.
The federal government also believes in the use of this technology, since it has planned no less than $12.5 billion to finance CCS projects over the coming years. This unprecedented financial support will be available in the form of tax credits.
Will the project of the oil companies that exploit oil from the tar sands obtain such support? Natural Resources Canada did not respond to the Duty at the time of publication of this text. Pathways Alliance, however, indicates that it is in discussions with the Canada Growth Fund “to determine the most appropriate way to support” the project.
The group, which is opposed to the capping of production emissions proposed by Ottawa, for its part describes the assistance available at the federal level as an “important step” for the realization of the CCS project. By email, it is added that other measures reducing the “risk” for investment made by fossil fuel multinationals should be available. The president of the Pathways Alliance, Kendall Dilling, has also taken lobbying steps in connection with this project, according to what we see by consulting the 75 communications “reports” registered in the federal register in the last year.
