Environment Committee on May 17th, 2012

[David Pryce, Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Just building on what Murray said, one of the things we said in our presentation is that in order for this to be a comprehensive framework, one of the elements needs to include the monitoring and reporting. As we go ahead with a project's development and as we look at the desired outcomes with respect to conservation, we need to be testing whether the plans we put in place are effective enough to apply the mitigation and have the mitigated results.

We are advocating that an effective monitoring program also be there to look at what those results are, and, if we need to, apply further adaptive management strategies.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Lambert.

What do you mean by “reclamation”? I will explain. I'd like to know whether, when you restore sites, any research is done first. You talked about planting trees and closing ponds. We've been around and we've seen that, sometimes, well-intentioned people can restore the land, but if no research is done first and the site is restored any which way, it can have a negative rather than a positive impact.

Do you do any research before you restore a site?

[Gordon Lambert]

Certainly reclamation plans are filed at the front end of our projects that document how we're going to commit to restore the landscape after our use of it, but it is adaptive management. To Murray's point, it is learning by doing.

I think over time what you're seeing is that the science of reclamation has advanced tremendously. The techniques of reclamation that are being applied today are very different from ones that would have been done 40 years ago. The effort is to approximate as closely as possible the regional landscape as it existed before. You would see a progression of science of reclamation from those early days to what we do today.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

You all talked about conservation and above-ground reclamation, but no one mentioned what you do when a well is closed. What do you have to do to mitigate the underground impact, not just at the surface?

[David Collyer]

Could we have David Pryce respond to that?

[David Pryce]

Thank you.

For us, the regulatory environment is very clear with respect to the abandonment and reclamation of wells. In essence, what we have to do is go back into the well when we're finished producing it, seal it off, and remove any surface equipment. At that point we go in and do the surface reclamation, which involves restoring the topsoil, doing the grading, if necessary, to put it to the natural grade so that we ensure that the drainage is consistent with the region.

The process for that is monitored by governments. We're required to get a reclamation certificate, which means, in essence, that we get inspected or audited on our work. It usually takes several years for the government to confirm that the work has been done appropriately and successfully. They take their time to make sure that the work is sustainable and is representative of the surrounding landscape.

Does that answer your question?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Lunney, seven minutes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Kenny, you stated in your remarks that CEPA believes that the industry and the National Energy Board, our primary regulator, have a sound understanding of best management practices and their effectiveness.

Opponents of pipelines will say they will leak. Can you explain to us how common the problem is and how industry manages it? Presumably there are valves along the way and you can shut them off. How do you manage disturbance in the pipeline delivery?

[Dr. Brenda Kenny]

First of all, prevention is the number one thing you address. Canadian companies routinely use internal inspection to keep an eye on what's going on inside the pipeline and through the wall of the seal. It would be similar to your experiences with your doctor in terms of medical opportunities today to keep an eye on things through MRI or CAT scans, as opposed to always having to go in for exploratory surgery if you suspect something.

That has helped place the Canadian transmission pipelines best in class in the world in terms of safety, which is a remarkable achievement, and one we're committed to continually improve.

To further prevent any incidents from becoming a challenge, there are things like valve spacing, 24/7 monitoring, automatic shutdown, emergency response, etc. All those things are well known and well regulated. Again, our commitment is to continuous improvement.

I would stand before you today and say that our absolute unequivocal goal is zero incidents. That is something our full board is behind. We have a number of management system components and best practices we're pursuing around that. Can I say there will never, ever be a pipeline incident in Canada? No, I cannot, any more than any of us getting on an airplane today can say there will never, ever be an airline incident. But can we be best in class and continually improve? Absolutely.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for that. I appreciate your putting that on the record.

Mr. Dunn, you were talking about the Debolt source water plant. You mentioned in this instance that you were able to access some 800-metre-deep saline water deposits for the hydraulic fracturing process. Can you comment on how common such deposits might be? Is this a rare phenomenon, or are such water sources relatively abundant?

[Richard Dunn]

It's definitely area-specific, but we're certainly investigating. It's not unique in any sense. For example, in the Dawson Creek area there's another large unconventional gas play called Montney. It's a very prolific play. We're currently looking at subsurface aquifers there as well, roughly in the same kind of depth. They are there. Western Canada is a sedimentary basin, and that does afford those saline opportunities.

There's a timing aspect to the whole thing as well. As you go in to prove up your natural gas play, you initially look at the use of fresh water or near-surface waters, but as you start to get more and more confident that there's long-term development there, at the same time you'll start to look for these alternative water sources. One of the areas we look at is the subsurface saline aquifers.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Pryce wanted to comment.

[David Pryce]

I have a quick comment. The policy environment in which we operate, particularly in Alberta, requires us to look for alternative sources of water. We look to fresh water first. The saline water isn't always geographically available or chemically appropriate, but the companies have to look at that before they make their decision on what they would apply for in terms of a water licence.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Lambert gave us a number of examples of partnerships and arrangements Suncor came up with to improve environmental outcomes. One of the projects you mentioned in passing after talking about what's now the Wapisiw Lookout, if I'm pronouncing it right, is the former tailings pond. At the end of that remark you talked about Suncor wasn't able to cancel four planned tailings ponds. You mentioned a $1.2 billion program to employ this technology. Are you talking about a TRO technology? Could you describe what you're talking about, and where this investment is expected to take you?

[Gordon Lambert]

Correct. TRO is the acronym for tailings reduction operations technology. The TRO technology is the treatment of the tailings to remove water at an accelerated rate. This will allow us to return dry tailings to the mine, versus having to store them in tailings ponds for long periods of time. It takes a process that would normally take 40 to 50 years to consolidate these tailings down to a very short timeframe. During the summer months we can dewater these tailings in days instead of decades.

It is a major breakthrough. The $1.2 billion I mentioned is the capital that's being invested to deploy that technology at commercial scale. That's occurring as we speak, which is a significant shift in our mining technology and overall approach.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thanks for that. We've had tremendous advances in technology in the past decades, and it's great to see those being employed to improve outcomes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Mr. Collyer.

[David Collyer]

He's raised an excellent point.

I have a very quick add-in. Gord, I think you mentioned this in your remarks. It's very important also to highlight that this technology is being shared and deployed across a number of different companies. You've heard the recent COSIA announcement around accelerating environmental performance technology and sharing intellectual property across companies.

It's important to talk about it in the context of what Suncor is doing. It's a great piece of work, but I think it's also important to recognize that this technology is being shared and applied more generally.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for that. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you, Mr. Lunney. Your time has expired.

Mr. Choquette, you have seven minutes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you kindly.

I want to pick up on environmental assessments, which I mentioned earlier. The budget calls for changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I am extremely worried, but it does not have to do with the national conservation plan we are discussing today. That was just an editorial comment in passing.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act underscores the importance of assessing projects properly. We've talked about shale gas and oil projects. I hope the future list will include those major projects.

My question has to do with what you said about the importance of strict regulations in order to have agreement among all the industries. I've heard criticism as far as the cumulative effects go. You do a really good job on a single project, but you don't look at the cumulative effects.

If you are to have a good reputation, if people are to believe that oil companies are worried about more than just production, if they are to see your activities in a positive light, would it not be advisable to make that component part of a strict regulatory regime? While a single oil well might not overly harm the environment, 20,000 wells in the same area could have a tremendous cumulative impact.

[David Collyer]

I'd be happy to take a first pass at the response to that.

We've been very clear that we're supportive of the initiatives around regulatory reform. We're also very clear that in no way should this compromise environmental outcomes, and I don't believe that to be the intent at all of the proposed legislation.

We are strong proponents of land use planning as a means by which to address the cumulative effects issue. We're on the record at CAPP as supporting the land use planning process, for example, in northeastern Alberta. We think that's the most effective way to deal with the broad regional issues. Then individual projects can operate within that framework in a more simplified regulatory review process in our view, because the broader issues around planning have been addressed through the land use planning process.

That's where we believe the equivalency approach and other elements of the proposed legislation are the right thing to do. They do bring to bear a simplification of the process, but they also ensure we're continuing to focus on environmental outcomes. Where there's a good process in place at the provincial level—and we would argue that the lower Athabaska regional plan is a good process—that should be implemented effectively and will provide that broader framework within which we can operate.

[Dr. Brenda Kenny]

I want to add, from a pipeline point of view, that we also believe the budget implementation act suggestions will open the door to a better environmental outcome, in part because the consolidation allows you to look at the whole set of opportunities for improvement in a project plan and to address it in an integrated way, which is the core for sustainable development.

On cumulative effects, which I agree with Mr. Collyer are best addressed by looking at the landscape, and we also are supportive of land use plans, I will go back to the example I shared as one illustration—and there are many on pipelines of the Kinder Morgan project—looking at the regional impact of large mammals. In fact I would say that legacy project reverses cumulative impact by allowing for better wildlife mobility.

Sometimes development can contribute to some of the solutions. These suites of legislation and the framework you're addressing in this committee can work hand in glove to achieve some very good outcomes.