Evidence of meeting #18 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sands.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
It's an act of Parliament. It is handled by the minister for DIAND.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
It's a federal government act. Wouldn't you then be responsible for that act as well?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I think you should check on that.
That gets to a point where, in the Northwest Territories, we have federal lands. Do you have any particular responsibility for the processing, the collector fields, on federal lands?
4:40 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, National Energy Board
We do look after the permitting of exploration and production on federal lands in the non-accord areas.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Okay, thanks.
On the tar sands environmental issues, you've talked about greenhouse gas emissions, but you didn't mention air pollution. You don't consider that an issue with the tar sands?
4:40 p.m.
Barry Lynch Technical Leader, Oil, National Energy Board
We identified several areas of concern. These were the three that we have identified for you today. There are more in our book here. We don't discount that it is an issue. There's also sulphur as an issue, and air pollution too.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Yes. There are considerable air emissions of volatile organic compounds--is that not correct?--through the smokestacks of the developments.
4:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Business Development & External Relations, Canadian Energy Research Institute
If I could add something to that, the provincial government has jurisdiction over manufacturing, as this is in Alberta. So the AEUB and Alberta Environment also have some jurisdiction over that.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Okay.
You said that the energy intensity of the tar sands was declining. Yet the overall energy intensity, according to Natural Resources Canada, in the oil business in Canada is projected to go up over the next 20 years. So the energy intensity of the whole oil stream is actually going up. Is that not correct?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
The total energy required is going up at a rate faster than the unit energy. Is that correct?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
So that's the situation in the oil industry right now.
Then, in the refining industry, which of course is very important to the tar sands, you're seeing there's about a 25% projected energy intensity increase per unit in the refining of oil in Canada. Is that not correct?
So we're really seeing that the oil industry is actually going to increase in energy intensity over the next 15 years per unit, not decrease.
4:40 p.m.
Bill Wall Technical Specialist, Oil, National Energy Board
In our report we speak to the energy intensity of the oil sands operations in terms of upgrading and the extraction of bitumen.
I'm not sure about your reference to refining as such, but the energy intensity of those operations is actually decreasing, as we show in our chapter on the environment--
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Maybe I could quote you on this:
The processing of heavier oil grades of crude oil will increase the energy intensity of Canadian refineries from the present level of 3.0 gigajoules per metre cubed to 3.8 gigajoules by 2020.
4:45 p.m.
Technical Leader, Oil, National Energy Board
We didn't look at the refineries in Canada, and that's what that's referring to there. NRCan looked at the refineries. Mr. Wall was only addressing the oil sands projects themselves, in Alberta.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
This government has set out in its Clean Air Act, or in its direction, that they want to see energy intensity reductions in industry. How would you suggest this is going to...? Well, with energy intensity reductions you'll see emissions intensity reductions; they're directly related. I guess we can agree with that.
How would you see this happening in Canada over the next 15 years?
4:45 p.m.
Technical Specialist, Oil, National Energy Board
Historically, over the last ten years or so, there has been a decrease in energy intensity of over 1% per year through the steps that industry has taken to decrease their energy usage. In our report we do have a chart that shows that, in our environment section.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I think we've gone considerably over time for this round, but you're welcome to come back and pursue that in the next round.
I'll go to the next one. Mr. Trost.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize again. In committees we tend to wander all over, because we have such a short period of time, so my questions will be in a few areas here.
In your report on the overall impact economically across Canada, you noted it wasn't only going to be concentrated in Alberta, and it wasn't only going to be concentrated in the oil and gas sector. Could you give me a better idea of what specific industries--in Alberta, and particularly in provinces like Ontario and Quebec, since those are the two you broke out--will most directly benefit from the spinoff?
Again, I'm looking for provincial breakdowns, such as what industries benefit most in Quebec, what industries benefit most in Ontario, as specifically as you can. I know this can be difficult.
October 24th, 2006 / 4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Research, Canadian Energy Research Institute
I don't have that by province, but in terms of the types of industries beyond the oil and gas that will experience a positive impact, there would be what we call FIR: finance, insurance, and real estate.
I have the information here. I can look it up.