Evidence of meeting #64 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nuclear.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Scott Vaughan  Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Bruce Sloan  Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Kimberley Leach  Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Andrew Ferguson  Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
John Gilleland  Chief Executive Officer, TerraPower
Glen Rovang  Manager of Research and Development, Syncrude

4:20 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

I think I would probably leave that for you to decide.

What I would say is that my understanding behind the precautionary principle is that if there is a risk of irreversible or serious damage, you actually don't proceed at all until you have sufficient information in order to make informed decisions.

What I would say on this one right now, with the lack of information...and you know, it's basic information: what are the chemicals used, and do they pose a risk?

Based on that, I don't think we have a full picture about what the risk could be.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Thanks. That's helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Mr. Julian, you have half a minute for one short question.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to fully use the minutes we have with the environment commissioner.

Mr. Vaughan, could you share with us—and you say it in your report—the estimate of the cleanup around the Fukushima nuclear power plant and what the liability issues were there? That contrasts, I think, very vividly with the low level of nuclear liability that we now have in Canada.

4:20 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

I think in the report on the Fukushima disaster the Japanese government estimated that the full cleanup costs are anywhere from $15 billion up to I think as much as $200 billion from that tragedy. That is the full cost of all, not just within the site itself, but all the widespread issues related to fallout and the damages related to that disaster.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We go finally to Mr. Anderson for up to five minutes.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, Mr. Julian asked me a question in question period regarding this. I find it very strange that the NDP would be raising this issue, because these liability limits would have been raised had they not filibustered the bills. His House leader was the critic here. We spent weeks trying to convince him that we should pass that bill. I think probably his ideological—if you want to call it—hatred or dislike of nuclear overrode a good sense of public safety there.

I would like to give you a chance to go a little bit further. Today in question period the Prime Minister also said that we're committed to the polluter pay principle. I'm just wondering if you have any suggestions on how that might be achieved, or how we might strengthen that, beyond just raising the liability limits. Do you have any other suggestions about how that might best be accomplished?

4:25 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

I may have a couple, but I certainly think this would again be an area where the committee may want to invite officials.

But one I would say just off the top of my head. We've said that, for example, first responders paid for by the private sector in offshore spills from ships go through third-party certification. By contrast, they do not have to go through that for spills from platforms, and that may be one, since the companies are the first responders. They're responsible for doing the cleanup, so that may be one to make sure that the companies actually have the capacity, because that's been a doubt now of the Newfoundland board since 2008, and that doubt remains about the capacity of the private companies to be able to respond.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Can I just ask you, then, how far did you engage the industry or operators in determining that? Your report is primarily dealing with a couple of jurisdictions of governments, but operators play a critical role here—they provide expertise and equipment. I'm just wondering how much time you spent with them or talking to them about their ability to provide a response.

4:25 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

We certainly met with private sector officials, but at the end of the day, just to be absolutely clear, what we were auditing was only the two offshore boards as well as the federal system. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to then go and audit the private sector companies in this.

I'll just repeat that the Newfoundland board, in their regulatory oversight of the companies, have had doubts since 2008 about that capacity. We certainly also saw all the plans of the companies submitted to the boards.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

I want to come back to the question about whether departments were receptive. You seemed to say they were. Are you comfortable with their response to your report? Do you feel that they're moving forward, that they're willing to listen to move forward on the things you suggested?

4:25 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

Just to say it again, particularly on the offshore oil and gas sector, our colleagues put their heart and soul into this over two years: given the importance if something goes wrong, what are the consequences? I think when we were going through the course of this, when the gaps and the problems were being identified, the attention of the very senior public service right from the beginning...I actually haven't seen it in the five years that I've been here. This is one, I think because of the risk, where the government and senior government officials have said, “We have a problem and we will fix it.” I'm very grateful, for example, to the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and other deputies for their commitment to fix this.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

You talked a bit earlier about the boards being surprised. It was the word you used. To be fair to them, they would not have had time, by the time you were done your report, to really take a look at the new CEAA and how it would apply to them. Is that correct? They were aware that there were changes coming and were surprised by that, but you never had a chance to talk to them about how that would then end up affecting them.

4:25 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

No, I think that would be right. We did talk to them when the bill was introduced with the proposed changes, and that would have been back in the spring. That's when they both called me, and we've spoken to them subsequently, obviously, since the passage of the bill in July 2012.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

We want to have good regulatory processes in place. I'm just wondering if you went to any international examples, regulatory streamlining or regulatory reform, that we might be able to learn from that you might be able to give us as an example.

4:25 p.m.

Principal, Sustainable Development Strategies, Audits and Studies, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Kimberley Leach

Yes. In terms of the offshore regime, we looked at Norway, we looked at the U.K., with Norway being pretty much the gold standard in terms of how it regulates. We also looked at other examples, for other reasons, from the United States, but the U.K. and Norway...Australia as well is a regime that's a somewhat similar size to ours.

February 5th, 2013 / 4:30 p.m.

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Scott Vaughan

We both went down to Washington and we met with very senior officials from the Department of the Interior and other senior officials. Right now they're going through the lessons of Deepwater Horizon. One of the things they were surprised at, and this is a policy issue I shouldn't comment on, is that the Canadian Coast Guard has the mandate to respond to spills from ships but not to spills from platforms. Their big lesson from Deepwater Horizon is that to respond you need to have a seamless focus to get all your assets together and coordinated. That may be one area that I understand the government may be looking at now.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

We all have that desire that if something happens, and hopefully it won't, you have good communication and we can work together on that.

I want to thank you for coming today.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Thank you again, Commissioner, for your report. Thank you for the great answers, which were very concise and direct, and also to the members of the committee for asking very pointed questions. The information we've gained in this hour I think is very helpful.

We will suspend the meeting for two or three minutes as we get online with the witnesses for our continuation of the study on innovation in the energy sector.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Good afternoon.

We resume our meeting with two witnesses today in the continuation of our study on innovation in the energy sector.

We have a witness from Bellevue, Washington. From TerraPower, we have John Gilleland, chief executive officer. And from Edmonton, Alberta, from Syncrude, we have Glen Rovang, the manager of research and development.

Welcome to both of you gentlemen. We only have an hour, maybe slightly less, to hear your opening statements and then to have our members question you on innovation in the areas you're talking about. We'll have you present in the order you're listed on the agenda, starting with John Gilleland, chief executive officer with TerraPower. Go ahead with your opening presentation, please, sir.

4:35 p.m.

John Gilleland Chief Executive Officer, TerraPower

I'm John Gilleland, the CEO of TerraPower. Bill Gates is the chairman of TerraPower.

I'll guess we'll be a change of pace from your previous discussions. We're a young company founded about seven years ago. We are focused on advancements in nuclear power. Although I've had experience with about every kind of renewable energy you can think of, as well as fusion and other forms of nuclear, I will focus on TerraPower.

You might wonder why a young company has been started to focus on nuclear. The answer to that question lies in discussions that were conducted in 2006. Bill Gates and some of his associates—Nathan Myhrvold—were looking at the efficacy of the myriad efforts the foundation was making in their area of vaccines, medicines, and other ways to help out people. One of the keys that became very apparent is that energy, and particularly electricity, is important for raising the standard of living of people, in turn amplifying the effects of the other works the foundation was doing.

TerraPower is a private company. It is not part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We are a separate company that Bill has started. We first did, however, an assessment of renewables, coal and other ways of achieving this increase in energy, to be made available to the two billion people on the planet who are at some risk because they don't have energy. We were quite neutral about the process.

We looked at renewables, in particular, hoping that would do the trick, but in the end we decided that nuclear power is essential as one of the elements of an energy infrastructure. We decided that we would pursue this. We of course wanted to pursue nuclear because of the concerns we all had for climate change. We didn't want to ruin our planet in the process of accelerating the movement toward the implementation of energy systems.

We decided renewables are important but insufficient, that nuclear is important but that innovation per se has not been the characteristic of nuclear, at least not in the United States for some time. We set about to try to reinvent nuclear from scratch. By that I mean we have now, in this post-digital age, great modelling capabilities that we did not have before—new technologies. We were privileged in TerraPower to try to develop a new energy system, a new form of nuclear, which would have seven key characteristics.

One of the characteristics, of course, is that it would have enhanced safety. We started the company before Fukushima, but we decided that one of our goals would be to achieve what's called inherent safety features in a nuclear plant. It was important for us to come up with a scheme where no on-site or off-site power is required in order for the reactor to keep itself cool and not have a Fukushima-like experience.

We decided that this sort of energy should be available to everyone. We looked for ways to use the 90% of uranium we now throw out as part of the enrichment process. About 90% of the uranium we mine is not used, so we decided that the concept should use that uranium. It should use the uranium fuel more efficiently.

One of our concerns was proliferation of weapons and the materials that make nuclear weapons, so we decided we would have as a goal the development of a system that did not require the risks associated in the long run with enrichment or what's called reprocessing.

We then decided that another goal should be to reduce the environmental impact, which means if you don't do these other things, you have much less waste produced along the way, i.e., you would have a simplified nuclear infrastructure. Lo and behold, we found that the seven objectives we had in mind were indeed achievable. This was a surprise to us, and led to the acceleration of the company into a more serious development phase. We now employ the national laboratories in the United States, the universities, several companies in the United States, as well as institutions in Korea, Japan, and Russia in the pursuit of the necessary technological developments to make this reactor possible.

This reactor is called a travelling wave reactor. The key to its operation is that it can produce power on the basis of using that depleted uranium, we call it, or DU, which is in great supply in the United States and other countries. These are like mines made by man. If you can use depleted uranium as a basic fuel, then all these other objectives fall into place.

So one might ask, what's the catch? The catch is that it requires some materials development and fuel development, but we were stunned to find that's about all it needs. The concept is based on types of coolant and fuels and so forth that have been used before, so the basic technologies are there. Innovation brought us to this point. We now have about eight universities, five companies, and maybe 30 institutions around the world working with us in a coordinated way. Our objective is to have some sort of prototype working in the early 2020s. So far so good. The testing we're doing around the world is turning out very attractively.

Mr. Gates and others are participants, not just investors, in this activity, so we are having, I'll call it, a very good time with an example of nuclear innovation. I'm sure other such endeavours should be undertaken. We're an unusual company. We would like lots of competition, because our fundamental goal in starting this whole business was to try to solve a problem, i.e., the problem of bringing energy to more people as fast and as economically as possible without severe impact on the planet.

You had a few questions. I can either stop for Q and A or I can address some of the questions you sent me via e-mail. What would you like me to do?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

After the next gentleman makes his presentation, members of the committee will ask the questions, so we'll just wait.

Thank you very much for your presentation, which was a fascinating and a refreshing approach to evaluating nuclear energy and moving ahead.

We go now to Syncrude, from Edmonton, Alberta, Mr. Glen Rovang, manager of research and development.

Welcome. Thank you for being with us today, and please go ahead with your presentation, sir.

4:45 p.m.

Glen Rovang Manager of Research and Development, Syncrude

Certainly.

Good afternoon, members. I am pleased to appear before you today to speak about research and development efforts at Syncrude. The Syncrude R and D department exists to directly support the Syncrude operation. For us, the goal is to develop and deploy technology innovations to deliver enhanced reliability, profitability, and environmental performance in the Syncrude operation. You will see that innovation in the oil sands is about far more than producing oil. It's about producing oil in an environmentally responsible way.

Research was actually the first department at Syncrude; it was formed in 1964, which was 14 years before we produced our first barrel of oil. Today, about 100 scientists and technologists work at our research facility here in Edmonton. Syncrude has a proven track record for developing technology suited to the oil sands. We have more than 140 Canadian and U.S. patents for our technologies, and many of these are in use in the oil sands today by other companies as well. More than half of our $60 million annual research budget is spent on environmental research activities. We remain one of the top 50 R and D spenders in Canada.

We have a commitment to R and D. As part of it, we are responding to public concerns and government requirements for more rapid reclamation of former mining and tailings areas. As part of these efforts, we collaborate with universities across Canada and with other organizations on research projects aimed at continuous improvement in the development of Alberta's oil sands, as well as the environmental aspects of that development.

I want to show you a chart, which hopefully you have in front of you, of our resource distribution for 2013. This is expressed in terms of our total effort, which includes expenditures. We can see by looking at the tailings and fluid fine tails management category and at the environmental research category that together these form about 58% of our total effort. We also have efforts in our core process improvements, equipment reliability, bitumen processing—which is on our upgrader side—and in analytical research as well.

We also support different aspects of environmental R and D. I'm going to talk about emissions for a second. We have supported such projects as the flue gas desulphurizer, which was installed and operational in 2006 with our Coker 8-3 expansion, the Syncrude emissions reduction project, which will reduce sulphur emissions by more than 60%—this is a $1.6 billion project that does not increase production and is going to start operation in 2013—and further, reclamation research, which includes research on land forms, soils, and revegetation, such that sustainable closure landscapes are achieved when we are finished with mining activities. There are a couple of specific research chairs in this area: forest land reclamation with the University of Alberta and mine closure with the University of Saskatchewan.

In the areas of tailings and water management, we have several projects under way. I'm going to speak to a few specific examples of those as well.

Of course, research and development efforts sometimes result in rapid deployment into the field of equipment and process technology, and in some cases, decades of research precede full-scale field demonstration. One of those examples is what we call Base Mine Lake. The research behind Base Mine Lake began back in 1989 in the field, with tailings being placed in demonstration ponds and then capped with water. They have been carefully monitored over the last two decades to get an understanding of the biological and ecological development. You can see some images in these slides that demonstrate how, over the course of time, these tailings-capped ponds developed.

That has led us to what we call the Base Mine Lake demonstration project. This is a much larger version of those earlier test pits—about eight square kilometres in size. At the bottom of this lake is a mined-out pit that contains clay-based tailings materials. This will eventually become a clay-bottom lake similar to other lakes in our region, but will involve essentially two phases.

Since December 31, 2012, this particular body is no longer a tailings facility. It's been turned over to us as a lake facility. There are no longer any active tailings going into that location.

The initial phase of development will be a water remediation phase through ecological development of the lake, and in the long term this will become part of the closure landscape in Syncrude's overall closure picture.

We're also doing novel research in the areas of water treatment. An example would be the use of petroleum coke. Coke is a by-product of our refining operation. The coke particles are in fact activated carbon that have the ability to do detoxification of naphthenic acids, and they're also a filter for suspended solids. If you take a look at the image on the upper right, you can see a container of coke particles, a container that has slightly yellow-tinged process water. When we pass the process water through the coke particles, we end up with the clearer water that you can see, and it sufficiently removes naphthenic acids so that it can support aquatic life, such as the goldfish that you see there. In fact, we have a tank down at our research facility where these goldfish are thriving today.

The very bottom image on this page is a much larger test pit that we have constructed. We have several of them, in fact, where we've placed coke particles, and we're flowing our process-affected water through that now and testing the results. So we continue to work on these novel water treatment technologies to provide more options for future reclamation.

Switching gears to tailings treatment for a second, we have a process that we have recently developed that's called centrifuged tails. The process consists of three basic steps. Initially we flocculate the tailings materials, which is essentially water with suspended clay particles. The flocculant is a polymer that is similar to that used in municipal water treatment. This is in turn then spun in centrifuges to produce what is known as a cake. It's a higher-solids content material. Then the cake is placed in pits for subsequent further dewatering and dessication, to the point that we can then undertake reclamation activities on top of that.

On the bottom right you can see one of our test locations where we're driving a vehicle on top of what was once tailings material. We have moved through technology development phases on this, and currently we have under design and construction a full-scale centrifuging plant about the order of $1.8 billion that will be operational around 2015. This centrifugation tailings technology development is important to us. It enables us to comply with the ERCP Directive 074.

I'll move to what we call the Sandhill fen project. This is an example of the development of a man-made groundwater-fed wetland. On the upper right there's an image of a naturally occurring fen in our region. What we are doing is replicating that in our tailings environment. The Sandhill fen technology, as we call it, will essentially enable soft tailings closure and reclamation. We'll have water table control through the placement of the hummocks, and you can see a little bit of that in the lower right where we've actually constructed this Sandhill fen. It's a 17-hectare pilot where we have the rises and falls in the landscape to enable these groundwater-fed wetlands to thrive.

An important part of this is the ability to transplant and place peat so that it will grow effectively, as well as other vegetation. On the lower left, there are some examples of test cells that preceded the significant pilot in order to understand how we could effectively do that with the peat and the vegetation.

So we are progressing this such that we can have the types of groundwater-fed wetlands in our landscape that were there before mining activities.

The information on our current reclamation status dates from year end 2011, given that the 2012 data is currently still being reconciled. The total land disturbed in our operations is just under 26,000 hectares. Soils have been placed and are available for revegetation on 1,200 hectares. Our permanent land reclamation is approximately 3,200 hectares. And land that's certified and returned to the Province of Alberta totals 104 hectares, which is the only certification in the oil sands region. We do have an upcoming area for recertification called South Bison Hills of approximately 1,000 hectares, and you can see an image of the South Bison Hills here on this page.

That's the material I intended to cover. Thank you for your attention. l will also take any questions at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much, Mr. Rovang, for your presentation.

We go now directly to questions. For the seven-minute round we'll have Mr. Allen, Mr. Nicholls, and Mr. Simms.

Mr. Allen, up to seven minutes, please.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Gilleland, I'd like to start with you because you've posed some very interesting thoughts with respect to where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is going on this, as well as your company.

You indicated the study started in 2006. One of the things you went over very quickly, though, was the idea that renewables, in your conclusion, based on your studies, would be insufficient. What led to your conclusion that straight renewables that we know of today—I assume you mean wind energy and other things—would not be sufficient?