Environment Committee on March 5th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

To ask the question is to almost answer it. But if you wish to--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It's a fair question. He talked about balance and--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is a fair question, but I think it's pretty self-evident. But if anyone wants to take a stab at it, please go ahead.

[Ian Matheson]

I do so at my peril, I guess.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I am interested. I'm fishing for some information.

[Ian Matheson]

The comparisons between what happens with birds in Toronto and what happens with fish in oil sands are not what we get into. But there are many factors considered when we're trying to figure out how much is enough. And one of them I mentioned earlier was how much an ecosystem could sustain. We're interested in that question.

We're also interested in the uses of the fish. And this is where aboriginal subsistence uses or cultural uses of fish are important for us to be aware of, and that's kind of why we undertake the aboriginal consultations. I know in the oil sands area there is also an aboriginal fishery. There are people who catch fish and sell it for a living.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

You're talking about in Fort Chipewyan?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We've run out of time, but you've navigated that question, I think, very well.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering about something as well. Mr. Trudeau had a question about energy used to produce oil. Now, I'm just wondering if the witnesses are going to provide that information. If we could have, from start to finish, before it's consumed--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Absolutely. I think you're right.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I think a lot of the reports seem to ignore the pipeline issue compared with trucking. Obviously it's a very similar thing for conventional oil once you take into consideration the transportation of it by truck compared to pipeline, because it's much more efficient for the oil sands oil to be transported. So I'd like that information.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure, could we get an accounting of the energy used to produce oil sands oil, looking at comparative scenarios?

[Kevin Stringer]

I started to say that between 10% and 20% in the end use is input in terms of energy, but we could get the specifics on start and finish, a sort of life cycle.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You could send that to all members through the clerk.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

And sources as well; for example, natural gas.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay, that brings us to Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think many of my issues have largely been settled here. I'd like to give my time to Mr. Warawa, if I could. I understand he has a few more questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you so much.

This is a question to Madam Kasperski.

Back in June I asked a similar question of Mr. Stringer regarding using carbon capture and storage and injecting carbon dioxide back into the ground. I asked if it would enhance oil recovery using in situ. Mr. Stringer said, “Good question. I can't answer that”, and he then deferred to Dr. Hamza. Dr. Hamza then said it does.

What has happened in Weyburn, actually, although we're getting the carbon dioxide from North Dakota, is that there's an experiment to see how it works. The advantage with Weyburn is that we know the base information, and when we put the carbon dioxide in, we can see the effect of the carbon dioxide. Your objective is to store it for a long time. But you should understand that when you put carbon dioxide into the oil, some of it stays behind and some of it comes back with the oil. So it is extracted and recycled again, and like the water, you make up the difference with this. It reduces the viscosity of the oil.

So is that the same science, that we're talking oil and bitumen? Dr. Hamza is saying that carbon capture and storage enhances the recovery with in situ. I think you said the opposite, so I want a clarification.

[Dr. Kim Kasperski]

When we're talking in situ, when that term is thrown around, that's in situ development of the oil sands. The Weyburn project in Saskatchewan is conventional oil and heavy oil. I'd have to clarify whether it's actually heavy oil or oil. It's not oil sands in which the CO₂ is being used--to the best of my knowledge.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So the question was specific to in situ, and Mr. Stringer deferred to Dr. Hamza, and he then said....

Maybe you could provide some further clarification on that.

[Dr. Kim Kasperski]

Definitely.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The other question is again on using carbon capture and storage. If we use in situ, right now it produces more greenhouse gas emissions than open pit. Is that correct? As we are expanding in situ, you still have the trees and the forest. It's putting pipes into the ground--anything below 75 metres, I think, was what you testified before. So as we are using more in situ, you don't have the disturbance of ecology above the ground, but you then put the pipes underground.

But you do at present create more greenhouse gas emissions, is that correct?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes. The in situ is lighter on the water and heavier on the GHG emissions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay. Now, as we bring in carbon capture and storage, it reverses that and it becomes a much cleaner way of retrieving the--