Evidence of meeting #26 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aquifers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Thank you.
Dr. Bruce, you were talking about in situ extraction. One of the things we heard repeatedly when we were visiting in the oil sands area was the emphasis on the use of saline groundwater sources. They did mention that it is difficult; you have to clean up the saline water a little bit before you can convert it into steam and do it.
You referred to substantial amounts of freshwater being used currently in situ. Can you talk a little bit more about that concern?
9:45 a.m.
Environmental Consultant, Climate and Water, As an Individual
That, again, is information from the Pembina Institute and other sources that suggests that because of the difficulty of desalinating the saline groundwater, there is more freshwater being used than had originally been hoped. That's another issue the Alberta Research Council raised. It asked for better information on how much of the water being used in these operations is saline and how much is freshwater.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
You mentioned that there is difficulty figuring out what to do with the salt. I don't understand. If you're extracting salt, surely you can find a use for it. What is the concern around that?
9:45 a.m.
Environmental Consultant, Climate and Water, As an Individual
It is extracted in such large quantities that you have to put it in big piles somewhere rather than in salt shakers.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Doubtless it's not consumable salt, either.
The other concern you bring up that worries me is the general sense that before the oil sands projects were developed, there were inadequate studies of groundwater. Right now, because the economic climate is in pause mode for new developments, this may be an opportunity to take a look at studying groundwater before giving the thumbs-up to any more projects.
What kind of study, what kinds of resources, and what kind of timelines would be required to adequately study this before starting up new projects?
9:45 a.m.
Environmental Consultant, Climate and Water, As an Individual
I would say probably several years. The main concern is the regional groundwater flow patterns, how groundwater flows from the areas in which the in situ projects and the mining projects take place, and the impacts in those areas to which the groundwater moves.
I looked at a couple of the environmental impact statements that worried only about whether an in situ well would affect anybody else's groundwater--any farmer, or anybody right nearby. So it was a very local assessment that was undertaken. What the Alberta Research Council is saying is that we need to understand what's happening to the groundwater and its relationship to the surface water in this whole region.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Now, you mentioned comparing to other areas of the country where groundwater studies have been more extensive. It seems to me from the amount of development in and around northern Alberta that there has been a lot of studying and testing on local areas rather than regional. But is there not a possibility, then, to draw together all those studies and create a comprehensive picture, or would more studies be required?
The other question is whether there's something more difficult intrinsically about the land formations in northern Alberta that makes a groundwater study more challenging to do there than elsewhere around the country.
9:50 a.m.
Environmental Consultant, Climate and Water, As an Individual
I suspect it is more challenging, but I don't think you can put together small local studies of impacts on local wells and extrapolate those to a much larger area, because you aren't looking at the flow patterns of groundwater and the interchanges with the river when you do that kind of analysis. It takes a new kind of analysis. Alberta Environment has a regional groundwater quality monitoring network that they have moved on in the last year or two, the first phase in the design of a monitoring program, which is cited in our report.
So there is some attention now being paid. But I think one should let those studies proceed before permitting more withdrawals of water either in the in situ projects or in the mining projects.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm actually going to defer my time to Mr. Warawa, if I could.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
I have a few more questions, Mr. Bruce. You talked about the difference between in situ and open pit.
On page 2 of the report that you referred to today, it says that typically, 2.0 to 4.5 cubic metres of water are required to produce 1 cubic metre of synthetic crude oil. Two paragraphs below, you're saying that it's 0.2--so two-tenths of a cubic metre to produce the bitumen using in situ. But then on page 5, you've used that same 0.2 cubic metres per metre of bitumen produced, and then you go on to say, “the demand for groundwater for in situ production could be as great as or greater than the demand for surface water for oil-sands mining”.
It seems to be a contradiction. On one hand you're saying it's less for in situ, and now you're saying it could be more.
9:50 a.m.
Environmental Consultant, Climate and Water, As an Individual
My understanding is that the initial estimate of the need for groundwater for the in situ project was indeed that 0.2:1 ratio, but that some of the most recent experience would suggest that it's more in the same range as it is for the mining operations. As you pointed out earlier, the in situ bitumen, or the bitumen at the deeper levels--below, say, 75 metres--is much more extensive than the bitumen that could be mined in surface mining.
So it's putting those two things together that leads one to think that maybe this is as big a problem or a bigger problem than in the mining.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
No, I.... With respect, it appears there is a contradiction there.
You also then go on to say that “unless new extraction processes are adopted” for in situ production. What new technologies are you aware of for in situ?
9:50 a.m.
Environmental Consultant, Climate and Water, As an Individual
I'm not aware of any new technologies.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I encourage you to study “toe to heel”. There is no water used for toe to heel.
9:50 a.m.
Environmental Consultant, Climate and Water, As an Individual
Is it applicable in other areas?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
To my understanding, and maybe Mr. Warawa can clarify, toe to heel is experimental at this point, is it not?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I don't think we're into a point of order. It's a guesstimate on the facts.
Mr. Warawa, you can go on.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
On page 6 of today's report, it says that, “when reclaimed, the surface-mined sites are expected to....ecosystems are vulnerable to leakage from tailings ponds near the Athabasca”. When we took the tour, reclaimed tailing ponds were sand, and then the overburden was put on them.
How could a reclaimed site leak when there's no more water in the tailing ponds?
9:55 a.m.
Environmental Consultant, Climate and Water, As an Individual
Well, where did the water go?