I will speak very briefly today. I won't take a great deal of time.
My name is Tony Clarke, and I am from the Polaris Institute. Together with the Parkland Institute in Alberta and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, we have been engaged in monitoring and watching the developments that have been taking place in the Alberta tar sands or oil sands.
We recently conducted a review and study of what was happening and produced a report called Fuelling Fortress America, looking at the Athabasca tar sands and its implications for Canada's energy policies. This work we carried out was done through a series of little teams moving in and having conversations with various people in the industry, various people who were working in various parts of what was happening, and also with aboriginal peoples, first nations peoples, plus environmentalists and a number of groups in society at large.
Through this process we were able to come up with a series of observations, part of which I'll briefly share with you today, along with some recommendations and proposals for where we might go in the future.
I want to concentrate my comments--in spite of the fine remarks we've just heard from the industry itself--on the deep concerns that exist on just how haphazard the model of development is that's occurring. To a large extent, permits are being granted all over the place without any reference to a clear set of criteria or a clear model of development itself. Certainly the whole question of coherence with regard to both criteria and model of development is really of deep concern. This is a form of haphazard resource extraction that does need to be brought under some measure of control. So that's one thing.
The second thing is that I think we need to recognize the extent to which we are dealing with the dirtiest form of petroleum production. We therefore have to take real care in terms of the environmental implications and understand what the environmental or ecological costs are in the long run.
In that regard, we felt it necessary to go into a number of topics, although I'll only cover a few here today. The first of those topics has to do with greenhouse gas emissions.
I think everybody realizes that when we're talking about the oil sands or tar sands, we're talking about the production of carbon and the production of greenhouse gas emissions, which are three times those from conventional oil and gas production. Under any circumstances, but especially in the current climate, this is something we need to give very serious consideration to.
The whole role of Canada internationally on this is very much at stake. The fact that we are unable to maintain our Kyoto commitments--or even come close to measuring up to our Kyoto commitments--is of deep concern, I think, to many people in the country in terms of the implications of the tar sands and the oil sands development that have taken place thus far.
We're dealing with a situation where, according to the National Energy Board, for every barrel of synthetic oil that is produced from the tar sands, an estimated 125 kilograms of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. The Athabasca tar sands will be making the single largest contribution to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. According to a report by the Natural Resources Defence Council and the Sierra Club of Canada in 2002, the greenhouse gas emissions in Canada will grow to 827 million tonnes in 2010. That's 44% beyond what Canada is permitted under the Kyoto Protocol.
All of these are I think dimensions of the issue that need to be looked at very seriously. The fact that there are no clear-cut targets with regard to greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands themselves and the fact that we still have not developed the kinds of technologies that are going to help us substantially reduce those greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands do raise some profound questions. I think this committee in particular and the federal government as a whole need to take full responsibility for addressing these issues.
The second point has to do with water depletion and contamination. Once again, I think the extent to which the oil sands production does require a great deal of fresh water to produce the oil and the in situ process of getting the petroleum separated from the bitumen are things that have been largely overlooked. I think you probably saw examples of how this is done during your visit to Fort McMurray.
It's important to keep in mind I think that according to our studies and estimates and investigations of this in a variety of different ways, between 4.5 and seven barrels of water are required for the production of every barrel of crude oil out of the tar sands. When we look at that, I think that it is of profound disproportion, especially in an area that is somewhat fragile with regard to future water sources. If we look at Alberta as a whole, 37% of all the fresh water sources in Alberta have been allocated for oil and gas production. If you take the Athabasca River itself, up to 66% has been allocated for the tar sands production alone.
I think we have to put this over and against the kinds of predictions that water scientists have been putting forward about just how serious things are getting in the prairies these days with regard to sources of water. Dr. David Schindler has been showing how the drop in the levels of the Saskatchewan, the Athabasca, the Bow, and other rivers throughout the 20th century has been very serious. They've been going down and down. When you look at the melting of the Arctic glaciers that affect, for example, the water flows into the Bow River, you can see that there are some serious warning signs on the horizon with regard to water use and water demands.
I think in this case we need to take a hard look at this and understand what is happening. Again, the technologies do not seem to be there, unless new ways of fueling and processing the oil sands are in play and are going to overcome the major problems of water depletion and contamination that are in front of us. With regard to contamination, the tailing ponds that have been produced--over up to I think something like 15 square kilometres--are becoming huge lakes made up of liquid that is not really usable again or is not being transformed and cleansed so that it can be used as water in the long run. I know there are different things that are being done by the companies on this, but I want to point out the fact that there are some serious challenges in dealing with the contamination of the waters that are already used.
The third point I want to draw your attention to is the fact that we are at a point of transition, I believe, with regard to energy and energy futures. With the tar sands and the oil sands, it's more than just dealing with the question of what kinds of oil and gas reserves we have for the future; we also need to take a hard look at what is on the horizon with regard to matters dealing with things like peak oil itself.
I think many parts of the world are waking up to this. They realize that a major transition needs to take place. If you go to Sweden and other parts of Europe, you see very clear strategies being pursued for energy alternatives. Not to play around with puns or anything, but we will be sticking our heads further in the sand if we do not use this moment and this time to start to make a transition to energy alternatives.
By that I simply mean that we need a new energy strategy that looks forward and starts to plan for the fact that even though the oil sands provide a great white hope for the United States at this time, it is not a great white hope that will last forever. Unless we start to make some serious transitions, we will be in some serious trouble ourselves, not the least of which is because we are exporting so much of the oil being produced from the oil sands and tar sands to the United States itself.
We are below the 10% mark in conventional oil reserves and natural gas reserves. If the natural gas that's used to fuel the tar sands continues apace, we will find ourselves in even more dire straits with our natural gas reserves. We need to recognize that and understand that we need to plan much more for the next 20 to 25 years and the kind of transition that needs to take place toward renewable energy alternatives.
We also need to take a hard look at things that continue to propel us in this direction. We have dropped the policy we once had where it was essential that we maintained 25% of our oil and gas reserves intact. We have gone well below that now--and that's for conventional reserves. Furthermore, there is a proportional sharing clause built into the North American Free Trade Agreement, and if we were to put a quota or a ban on the export of either oil or gas because of our own energy security needs, there would be a serious economic and legal retaliation.
As a result of this, I think we need to take a hard look at where we are right now, what kinds of changes we need to make in existing policy instruments, and what it means to actually take the step forward to develop a made-in-Canada energy strategy and policy.
As noted in our report, we feel it is essential at this time to look at what it means to create the space to develop these kinds of strategies for the future. In order to do so, a moratorium should be put on future development of the tar sands--not on existing projects, but on future permits and expansion of tar sands development--in order to provide the necessary time to make the kinds of reasonable and thoughtful decisions about this valuable resource and its implications for the environment and society at large.
So we call for a moratorium, and in that context, that means providing the time and space to actually develop a made-in-Canada energy strategy and policy that we so desperately need.
Thank you.