Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

In spite of the fact that the issue has been around for so many years, this is the first time we're talking about it at a committee at the federal level?

[Mary Griffiths]

To my knowledge, yes.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. That's all I wanted to know.

Looking at your submission, Ms. Griffiths, and on one of your pages you have some recommendations. You say putting a user fee on the water used by the oil industry could fund research into new technologies, improve water management, etc. Good suggestions. Then I look at the deck from Natural Resources Canada and I see that what they do is provide scientific understanding into tailings management, water chemistry, provide expertise in the development of new technologies to reduce the effect of oil sands development. Basically, what they're doing is what you're saying you ought to do. Is it that you don't think they're doing a good job and you can do it much better?

[Mary Griffiths]

No, no, no, it's not a question that the Pembina Institute is doing it; it's a question of more research. I think what they're doing is excellent, but I think they'd probably be the first to agree that we could do even more with more resources.

Also, there's one thing about doing sort of lab work and researching new technologies, and I think they've come a long way with the consolidated tailings. But from the aspect of groundwater, for example, which is going to impact a huge area, over 100,000 square kilometres, an area bigger than the area of Florida, where they've got the in-situ bitumen...we don't understand our groundwater. Alberta, for example, has one monitoring well, on average, for every 3,000 square kilometres. We need a lot more information about groundwater.

The federal government has been doing a good job on studying one of our aquifers in Alberta, the Paskapoo aquifer. I think it would be great if the federal government also helped us out in learning a lot more and speeding up our knowledge, before we get so many cumulative impacts that we don't even have a baseline against which to measure the changes.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

You talked about putting fees on the water usage, of course, and increasing scientific research. Given the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from the tar sands today—I'm sure you must have done some studies; by implementing all of the things you're suggesting here, there would be a cost to it. How much of a cost do you think would be added on a per barrel cost basis if what you're recommending were carried out to its fullest extent? What would that raise the cost of extraction to?

[Mary Griffiths]

We have not actually done that equation. We don't have the resources to go into such depth to do an accurate...well, we've done it with greenhouse gas emissions, and the amount would be a dollar or so. It varies according to what systems you use. We have not done it with water. It was a question of having a financial levy that would be used productively.

For the moment, with the price of oil being what it is, we know there's a very large margin there. Companies at the moment find it more economic simply to reinvest in producing more oil. They get a better return on their money than they do reinvesting in water conservation. I've heard that said by companies.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. I want to move quickly because I think I'm running out of time.

There appears to be a jurisdictional conflict here, where the federal government, I'm sure with the blessing of the Province of Alberta, is invited and helps to do scientific studies and research into environmental issues on a wide scale. When we get to the point at which the federal government's natural resources studies call for the infusion of a lot of provincial money to actually do the projects that the study has identified, the province actually has to say, “Oh, yes, we agree we'll spend the money.” That's where the rubber hits the road. We can do a lot of research, but is there a commitment from the province, or will there be a problem to actually spend the money to carry out the recommendations of the scientific research results?

Maybe Ms. McGuaig-Johnston can answer that.

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

I'm afraid I can't speak to provincial policies in this regard. We do work very closely with provincial research organizations, the Alberta Energy Research Institute and the Alberta Research Council, but I can't speak to provincial policies and priorities.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

What I'm saying is let's say we put a lot more money into research on ways to improve the environmental effects of the oil sands and we gave some great results and recommendations to the provinces, and they said, no, from an economic point of view, we feel it would impact the cost of extracting too much, it would cause a downturn in the development, and our economy can't afford that. Where do we go from there?

[Mary Griffiths]

I think when individual projects are reviewed--and this is how progress is made--we have the federal government sitting usually on a joint review panel, and it's possible then to say these are conditions that you should write into that application going ahead. And if we have both the federal and the provincial government having more knowledge about what those impacts will be, now we can have two companies operating in the same area. They both can provide their environmental impact assessment, but they don't always realize what the overlapping impacts will be over those two operations within the same area.

With more knowledge we will be better able to anticipate the problems.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Can I just have one more question, one little one?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You can get on the next round. Sorry. You did go a little bit over that time, for a change.

I should also mention that we were going to hear from one of our Alberta ministers in Fort McMurray, the Honourable Greg Melchin, the Minister of Energy, who had inquired about joining us briefly in Fort McMurray. He is now unable to do that, but we have had some discussions, and I think it might be appropriate to ask a representative of the Alberta government to come down and respond to some of these questions. So we'll perhaps do that after the break.

I will go now to Mr. Telegdi.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In terms of the tailings ponds, what kind of groundwater protection strategies are put in place in terms of what is below the ground for the tailings ponds?

[Dr. Kim Kasperski]

I can speak to that just a little bit. What I know is they build ditches around the ponds, so any drainage through the ponds is collected in the ditches and then it's just pumped back into the ponds. Obviously anything deeper than those ditches could potentially escape, so I don't know what measures they do have to look at any deeper drainage than that.

I don't know if Ms. Griffiths knows more.

[Mary Griffiths]

There is a concern, certainly, that there could be some leaching from the ponds, and one concern that they're discovering is there are a lot of buried channels, and they're still learning the location of the buried channels. They are sometimes only about a kilometre wide and up to 180 metres deep, and on the Alberta geological survey...I saw a map one year, and then the next year another map, and there were a lot more of these channels on the map. Because they are small, they are not always picked up by the routine surveying, and companies, when they come to do their operations, obviously survey at a much higher density, and they're actually telling the government where some of these channels are.

Of course, if it should be that there's a tailings pond built over one of these channels, and it's only fairly recently that they've discovered these, then there could be a real problem. I know that in Suncor's latest application they did a lot of work to identify within their project area whether there were any of these buried channels that they didn't know about, but this is something that is a concern, and hopefully there are none of these buried channels under any of the existing tailings ponds. There are not, to my knowledge, but I did hear that one SAGD operation has found unexpectedly that there was a buried channel within part of their lease area.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Is there any testing of the deep aquifers under the ponds?

[Mary Griffiths]

They do have some monitoring, but I don't know how much.

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

The Geological Survey of Canada has started an extensive research and mapping of this whole area of the northern part of Alberta as a way of understanding what is going on with the aquifers and the groundwater, and certainly we would be in a position to give you some background information or some technical information that might help you in your work in that area.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

My concern would be that most of the fresh water that we have on the planet is in groundwater. It's not in lakes and it's not in rivers and it's not in the ice caps. It's right in the ground. Once you contaminate an aquifer, it becomes virtually impossible to clean it up.

It would seem to me that we should be testing the aquifers. And if it is the case that this aquifer has been contaminated, then it can be kissed off, because there's going to be no rehabilitation for many centuries. But at the very least, use that water, and be very careful before you do any tailings ponds that don't take into account what the aquifers are doing and what activity is there. It staggers the mind.

I come from the Waterloo region, and we're very much dependent on groundwater there. I know that if you contaminate a deep aquifer, that's it, there's no rehabilitation for it.

Can we have some kind of testing in terms of monitoring what's happening there now? We'd want to know it for the sake of science anyway.

[Mary Griffiths]

It's not just the contamination; it's also the volume of water.

The mining area is one area, but the area that is going to be impacted by the in situ, where they're actually going to be drawing down the aquifers.... And then of course you can get other waters flowing in, which may have a different purity, and also water flowing downwards into the areas from which the bitumen has been taken out. The actual water table will flow, and then other substances can flow in.

So it's not just a question in the tailings area; it's a question--which is a major concern to me--over the whole area where the bitumen is being developed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Dr. Kasperski, did you have something to add?

[Dr. Kim Kasperski]

I was just going to say that it is a provincial jurisdiction, although, as Ms. McCuaig-Johnston said, the Geological Survey of Canada is helping. But it is provincial jurisdiction to monitor and control the groundwater.

[Margaret McCuaig-Johnston]

We provide technical information to them--to a number of regulators, in fact--on the mapping and what's there, and then it's up to them to decide what measures they want to take for controls or regulations in that connection.

It may be something you would raise with the Alberta government people you'll be meeting on your trip out there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, thank you. And it may be something we might want to recommend in this report. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Mr. Ouellet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am all the more pleased that this time I will be able to ask a question that has been on the tip of my tongue for weeks.

My question is for Dr. Kasperski.

Ms. McCuaig-Johnston at one point mentioned that there are naphthenic acids. I took a chemistry course at McGill University, but that was back in 1954. I therefore do not remember what theses acids are.

I would therefore like you to explain to me what they are, from a technical point of view, but in a language that I can understand. Are there heavy metals involved? Are there hazardous materials? What chemical compound are we talking about?

You stated earlier in your presentation that these compounds are not dangerous and that they could be spread over land, for example in gardens. But you must be aware that there are mixes of earth derived from composting and which are dangerous. These compounds could therefore contain harmful substances. What is dangerous in their composition?