Environment Committee on May 13th, 2009

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you; sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Mackenzie—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Trudeau, I'm sorry to say that your time is up. I know you were on a line of questioning there.

Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I think you'll have to put on your earphones, because I'm going to talk to you in French.

Mr. Thompson, what price would you be prepared to pay per litre of water that you use and that comes from the Athabasca River?

[Don Thompson]

First of all, the oil sands and the oil and gas industry are not the only users of water in the province. I guess I would be prepared to pay the same price as other users in the province of Alberta.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I believe that the other towns that filter and use the water that comes from the river pay for it to meet their standards. So there's a price for that. If I correctly understood your answer, you're not necessarily prepared to pay all the time. In a free market economy, everything comes at a price. The water you use also has a price.

[Don Thompson]

Indeed. In fact, I'm paying the same amount to withdraw water as municipalities and other water users are paying. And indeed, I'm paying a considerable amount to treat that water once I have it in hand, whether it's for potable human consumption in sites, or for boiler feed-water. So I think there's an equitability there already.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Is that the price at which you sell the water? If you export one million barrels of oil to the United States a day, that means that you're exporting three million barrels of water to the United States a day.

[Don Thompson]

The price of oil is determined on commodity markets, and that's what I receive for those barrels. Many people use water whether they are producing food stocks or other commodities that are imported or exported from the country. Again, I'm paying the same amount as they are.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I don't think they use as much water as you.

Mr. Lunn, you're telling us that you only use 1% of the water. That's interesting. You justify what you're doing by talking only about the water you use directly. You consider that what you use directly is the only cause of reductions in river water.

However, the oil sands contribute to greenhouse gases, which directly cause climate change. Furthermore, Alberta, because of the oil sands, produces 43% of the greenhouse gases emitted by Canada as a whole. Those greenhouse gases have a direct impact on the quantity of water in the Alberta basins and even further, and you don't consider the effect of the production of greenhouse gases when you try to assess what in your activities contributes to reducing the quantity of water in the Athabasca River and other rivers!

Why do you consider only what you take out of the river?

[Don Thompson]

First of all, before I let Mr. Lunn answer, the fact is that greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands are 4.6% of the total emissions of Canada...and something like 80% of the emissions from a barrel of oil produced and the greenhouse gases at the consumptive end. So our contributions to the impact you're speaking of are actually relatively limited, compared with other users of our product.

So with that, I'll let Mr. Lunn speak to your question.

[Stuart Lunn]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Ouellet.

I wanted to clarify first the forecasting of the water take from the river. The Oil Sands Developers Group that did the forecast on water requirements specifically looked at a dry period, because it was a dry period when the water management framework would kick in. So that 16 cubic metres per second as a peak was for a very dry period. As such, the major source of water in a dry period is the river, and not other precipitation sources.

I recognize your question on the potential effects of climate change on the Athabasca River flows. It is currently unknown whether or not climate change will increase or decrease the flows. There has been some discussion that summer flows would be expected to decline in a warmer climate, and the winter flows might actually increase. However, I am not a climatologist. I would note this is one of the things being discussed in the phase two process that is looking at another water management framework, or a phase two improved water management framework, for the Athabasca River. So we will be taking a look at potential climate change scenarios and how we might manage that.

Thank you.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Thompson, I find your answer very interesting. As parliamentarians living in Canada, we are certain that 43% of greenhouse gases are emitted by Alberta. You're telling us that the oil sands emit only 4.6% of those gases. Where would that difference of 38.4% come from? Where would those Alberta emissions come from?

[Don Thompson]

First of all, there are other industries in Alberta beyond the oil sands, and there are many consumers in Alberta. The majority of greenhouse gases across the country come from things like transportation, building use, agricultural use, and the like. I don't have the data in front of me, but I presume it's the same relative split for the province of Alberta as well. I'm presuming that we can provide you, as a follow-up, that data of where exactly in Alberta greenhouse gases come from.

I recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are a global issue and that it doesn't matter where in Alberta or Canada they come from. Within Canada, 4.6% of greenhouse gases come from the oil sands. That is our impact. In fact, being that Canada emits 2% of global emissions, the oil sands' impact is at 0.1% of global emissions of greenhouse gases, and it is global emissions that are relevant for climate change purposes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's good.

Mr. Ouellet, we now have to move on to Ms. Duncan.

Ms. Duncan, go ahead please.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Following the good questions of my colleague Monsieur Ouellet, in regard to the coal-fired industry in Alberta, after many public interventions the government now requires the coal-fired industry to return the water used to the lake, treated.

You've reported to us how much water is used, but I'm presuming, based on your presentation, those are direct withdrawals. Have you been required by the government to calculate the full water loss to the lake, including from the mining where you're destroying steams and peatlands and you're containing water?

[Don Thompson]

I'll let Mr. Lunn deal with that, but I would say that I think the coal-fired power plants use water to produce steam and for cooling, rather a different application. Secondly, at all the mines that I'm familiar with, the root surface water around the mines, such as that which flows from the streams that would otherwise cross the mines, is diverted back into natural systems.

With that kind of overview, I'll let Mr. Lunn speak in more detail.

[Stuart Lunn]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Following up on Mr. Thompson's answer, there are two types of water in the mining industry surface water--the water that comes in contact with the oil sands and the water that doesn't. If the water does not come in contact with the oil sands, it is typically diverted around the mine, as Mr. Thompson said, and back into the watershed. If it does come in contact with the oil sands, it is collected in a closed-circuit loop to prevent it from returning back to the ecosystem and potentially having some impacts from dissolved hydrocarbons and substances.

I do want to recall that when we're talking about the full water balance, we did look at a very dry period for the Oil Sands Developers Group forecast of the amount of water that might be withdrawn from the Athabasca River. During those very dry periods, there is very little surface water precipitation. So while it doesn't account for 100% of the water, because there's always some precipitation and some groundwater that needs to be pumped, it is a fairly robust number.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Could somebody just answer my question with a yes or no? Does the 1% that you say you're using from the watershed include--yes or no--the loss of water from the destruction of the watershed, not just the direct withdrawal from the river?

[Stuart Lunn]

Again, I would say it's not a yes-or-no answer. That's because it depends on the climate situation.

Under the assumptions that were taken of a very dry period--I'm speculating somewhat--some 80% to 90% of that would be represented by that, say, 1%. There would be some additional water required to be diverted, such as groundwater, to prevent it from filling the mines, for example; and some precipitation also occurs, even during dry periods, that would subsequently evaporate, for the most part, as it would normally.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, thanks. I'm not getting a clear answer, so I'll move on.

Actually, for coal-fired, it is included in the model and they have to report, and the water is treated before it is returned. It is not directly put back into the lake or the river.

Mr. Mackenzie, I wonder if you could comment. You had stated that your water quality assessment is state of the art. Are you aware of the federally commissioned Council of Canadian Academies' national science advisory report that was released yesterday, which raises serious concerns about the science and the use of water in the oil sands?

Among concerns they've raised to the federal government are the lack of data on the aquifer reserves at all, and the risks posed by the tailing ponds to the northern water regime. They find that in situ operations using water and steam are of particular concern, possibly more than the mining. Knowledge is lacking as to whether the aquifer in the region can sustain the groundwater demands and losses, even where reclaimed. There will be less wetlands, more lakes, and no peatlands. Tailing ponds consistent with permeable material are a concern. Aquatic systems are vulnerable to leakage from the ponds.

Those are some of the issues that they have reported to our Parliament and that we will be considering. I wonder whether you could still attest to the fact that your work is state of the art.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well, given that the report was released, I think, yesterday, I haven't had a chance to look at it at all. It's the first time I'm hearing about it, except that I did hear that it was released. So I'm not able to respond specifically to any of the suggestions in that report.

I will say, though, with respect to the statement about tailings ponds and so forth, that the tailings ponds that are in existence and proposed are being managed very effectively to capture seepage so that it isn't going to receiving streams and having any effect on receiving streams.

Beyond that, I'm not sure if Dr. Lunn has anything to say about some of the water use aspects.

[Stuart Lunn]

I also have not had a chance to review the report, but I would like to comment on your perspective on the lack of data on aquifer reserves.

Again, in the Cold Lake-Beaver River water management plan, and in fact in Imperial's 30-year history of production in the basin, we've developed a tremendous groundwater monitoring network at our facility, which consists of over 600 groundwater wells. So we have considerable knowledge of the groundwater reserves in that area.

I think the step forward that needs to be taken is to take the silos of very good information collected by individual operators and to incorporate them into groundwater monitoring networks more regionally. We certainly understand very well the groundwater systems within our operations, but we'd like to link other operations so that there's a better regional picture of the understanding of groundwater.

Alberta Environment is currently pulling together three of these groundwater networks. One in the oil sands mining area. One is south of Fort McMurray in an area that's called a steam-assisted gravity drainage area, and another is the Cold Lake-Beaver River, which is somewhat separate from those other two.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So these projects have been allowed to proceed before we have data on the aquifer completely in place as the baseline?

[Stuart Lunn]

No, not at all. In fact, as part of each environmental impact assessment for any project, groundwater monitoring is necessary as part of the application process to understand where the aquifers are and what the potential impacts might be to the aquifer resources.

My intent in my previous answer was to suggest that this can be improved by pulling together the best information from all these groundwater networks into a more regional picture.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Kuzmic, you spoke about the regional aquatics monitoring program, or RAMP. We had testimony yesterday from Drs. Schindler, Donahue, and Griffiths. They reported to us that the peer review of the RAMP report raised serious problems with the sampling methodology and the findings. We now have before us the intensive monitoring work undertaken by Dr. Schindler and associates.

I'm wondering if you can tell us, as a result of that peer review, did the RAMP team address the inadequacies from the peer review, and how have you changed the way you're doing your studies? Are you, additionally, looking at studies done by independent scientists?