CANADA

Canada is currently a paradox: the eastern province on Ontario is phasing out reliance on coal plants and nuclear while energetically moving towards carbon free sources, while out west oil companies invest billions of dollars in tar sand oil production at enormous costs to the environment. Canada has 51 coal-fired plants producing 19% of  the country's electricity and 13% of its greenhouse gas emissions. Hydropower provides roughly 60% of Canada's energy, and nuclear another 16%. [Oil sands production is said to emit three to five times the amount of greenhouse gases than conventional oil production.Alberta has the world's third largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels. Overall, Alberta has more oil than Russia or Iran. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more.] Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol in December 2011 as it fought to protect oil sands production against world condemnation.

Recent news:  

Feb. 2 2012: China option will be tough for PM Harper. Prime Minister Stephen Harper may find the China option could prove to be even tougher than Keystone.. Though it appears a classic supply-demand match on the surface, the plan faces hurdles that range from how long it will take to build the pipeline to environmental dangers and questions about China's human rights record. China imports no oil from Canada at present, and the infrastructure is not in place in Canada to get the crude from the massive tar sands of Alberta to the Pacific coast, forcing a long-term view of a partnership. A myriad of legal and regulatory issues play a big role in the delay. Also the Chinese are in the process of investing in Canadian assets. A major poll last year showed 76% of Canadians opposed the idea of a state-owned Chinese firm trying to buy a controlling stake in a Canadian company. It also said more Canadians saw China's growing strength as a threat than as an opportunity. link

Dec. 1 2011: Enbridge pipeline faces 'unbroken wall of opposition' in B.C. First Nation communities have formed a united front against pipeline expansion and oil tanker traffic, as Enbridge Inc. pushes ahead with its plan to build a pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat on the B.C. coast. Several new First Nations signed on to the Save the Fraser Declaration in Vancouver, bringing the total number of bands supporting a ban on pipeline and tanker expansion to 130. Collectively, the signatories represent an "unbroken wall of opposition" from the U.S. border to the Arctic Ocean. "North or South, it makes no difference. First Nations from every corner of B.C. are saying absolutely no tarsands pipelines or tankers in our territories," said Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik'uz First Nation and member of the Yinka Dene Alliance. "We will defend our decision by any means possible." link

    ______________________________________________________
    

• Overview on climate change
• Alberta's tar sands
• Positive news from Ontario Province
• Other news from  Canada
  
• Keystone XL pipeline and the US link
• Coal and carbon sequestration

When Canada signed the Copenhagen Accord in December 2009, it committed to reducing its greenhouse (GHG) emissions to 607 Megatonnes (Mt) in 2020, or 17% below 2005 levels. (This mirrors the reduction target set by the United States.) In 2005, Canada’s total GHG emissions were 731 Mt, representing about 2% of overall global GHG emissions. The Government of Canada’s initial focus in tackling climate change has been on the largest source of Canadian emissions through regulation of the transportation sector, as well as actions to reduce emissions from electricity generation. Existing measures announced by federal and provincial governments will reduce GHG emissions in 2020 by about 65 Mt.  This represents one quarter of the reductions in emissions needed by 2020 to reach the target level of 607 Mt. A July 2011 study  - "Canada's Emission Trends" - shows that largely as a result of coal-fired plants giving way to natural gas-fired power, electricity generators will see their emissions fall by 31 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent over that period. That figure is far eclipsed by the oil sands, which will see carbon output rise by 62 Mt, tripling its 2005 levels. Of that, 25 Mt will come from new so-called “in situ” extraction methods that inject steam into underground wells to extract oil sands crude. A further 11 Mt will come from expansion of oil sands mining. The rest is expected from additional upgrading, a process used to transform the thick, heavy oil sands bitumen into a lighter crude that can then be refined into end products like diesel and gasoline. (pdf) 

Canada’s carbon footprint is almost as damaging to the planet as the USA’s. Canada had agreed to cut its emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. As of 2004, however, Canada's emissions had risen by 27% over its 1990 level, while the EU-15 average was 3% and the USA 13.7%. Part of the reason for the surge in emissions related to problems with Ontario's nuclear power plants in the 1996-97 period when some nuclear units had to be taken out of service to be repaired.  June 24 2010: Environment Minister Jum Prentice said Canada will phase out older coal-fired power plants During this time Ontario’s large coal-fired plants got pressed into service full-time. Part of the problem according to John Bennett, a senior policy adviser with the Sierra Club of Canada, is a lack of political will to force action on cutting emissions. 2004 figures showed Canada's CO2 emissions at 20.0 tonnes per capita, only slightly less than the USA's at 20.4 tonnes. link 

September 2011: Geothermal alone could supply all Canada’s energy needs. A "massive" store of clean, renewable energy is sitting at Canadians' feet, according to a federal report on geothermal energy. "As few as 100 projects could meet Canada's energy needs," according to the team's findings, with Canada's in-place geothermal power exceeding one million times Canada's current electrical consumption. The heat is closest to the surface in large swaths of British Columbia, Alberta, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, but the report says geothermal energy opportunities exist across Canada. link
     

Tar Sands mining and environmental costs. Canada’s oil sands, a mixture of sand, clay, water and heavy oil (called diluted bitumen) contain the world's second-largest concentration of crude at about 170 billions barrels.This oil is significantly more acidic and corrosive than standard oil. Pumping it at a high temperature and high pressure for long distances is a relatively new and untested venture. Alberta has economically recoverable reserves are put at 300 to 400 years of production at current rates. In 2008 1.2 million barrels a day were produced. Canada's reserve is shown as 173 billion barrels, placing it second only to Saudi Arabia in global oil reserves. It is an expensive, energy-hungry process - the richest oil sand is about 10% oil, and it takes about two tonnes of it to make just one barrel of oil. Oil sands production is said to emit three to five times the amount of greenhouse gases than conventional oil production. Pollution from this process has brought, besides increases in cancer, deformed fish with tumors, popular fish with so much mercury they should not be eaten, and some hunters and trappers were saying the meat tasted unusual.  link 1   link 2 [Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States, responsible for about 20% of U.S. imports, and the bulk of that oil comes from the oil sands. The current valuation of tar sands oil is out at $14 trillion.Currently, Canadian crude can be pumped only as far as the U.S. Midwest, where a crude oil oversupply is keeping regional oil prices low. The Keystone XL would clear that bottleneck, send Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast and open access to world markets, creating a massive business opportunity for tar sands players.]

January 2012: Oil sands pipeline battle turns ugly. Canada’s natural resources minister, Joe Oliver, caused a furore in Canada in a letter exhibiting government concerns that a second potential outlet (the Northern Gateway pipeline) could be in jeopardy because of public opposition. It was seen as a sign of the conservative government's frustration at growing opposition to its efforts to find global markets for its tar sands crude. link

December 2011: Major river basin threatened by tar sands exploration. Contamination of a major western Canadian river basin from oilsands operations is a "high-profile concern" for downstream communities and wildlife, says a newly-released "secret" presentation prepared last spring by Environment Canada that highlighted numerous warnings about the industry's growing footprint on land, air, water and the climate. The warnings from the department contrast with recent claims made by Prime Minister Harper and Environment Minister Kent that the industry is being unfairly targeted by environmentalists who exaggerate its impacts on nature and people. link

August  2011: Canada claims EU backing down on tar sands standards. The proposed standards, known in Europe as the Fuel Quality Directive, and in other jurisdictions as a Low Carbon Fuel Standard or LCFS, would restrict imports or use of fuel that requires intensive energy use and results in higher greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, such as the oilsands.link    (Read here on the 2008 agreement.)

February 2010: Canada looks to China to exploit oil sands rejected by US. Faced with growing political pressure over the extraction of oil from its highly polluting tar sands, Canada has begun courting China and other Asian countries to exploit the resource. The move comes as American firms are turning away from tar sands because of its heavy carbon footprint and damage to the landscape.link   An alternative western route for tar sands oil, via British Columbia to the Asian Pacific market has several problems and could be years away - link   

While Canada has long been a major energy exporter to the US, there are now powerful incentives to divert coal and oil towards the western Canadian coast for growing energy markets in Asia. Canadian National Railways promising a far cheaper solution than the staggering capital and financing costs involved with increases in pipeline capacity to the USA. Estimated cost of building lines to ship four million barrels a day from the oil sands to the U.S. gulf coast is US$24.7 billion. Other reasons add to this possibility, including overcoming endless American red tape and US environmentalists' concerns. link

April 2011: Setback for tar sand oil firms. Alberta's government has produced new environmental rules that that would revoke a number of oil sands leases, including those which already have active projects, in an effort to protect sensitive habitat, wildlife and forest land in the most industrialized area of the province. The consultation process is scheduled to wrap up in 60 days, and the minister said he wants to have the final draft of legislation before Cabinet in 90 days. link  Latest accidents: (Pictured: Rainbow Pipeline accident, Alberta's worst oil spill since 1975.) Two oil spills in April 2011 in the much-disputed Alberta-to-Texas tar sands pipeline in North Dakota and Alberta are more evidence that TransCanada's 1,702-mile, $7 billion Keystone XL line should be put on hold until safety issues are addressed claim environmentalists. link
  
March 2011: Panel agrees that oil sands development is polluting waterways.            A government-sponsored scientific committee studying water monitoring in Canada's oil sands has backed assertions that multibillion-dollar energy developments are polluting waterways and it urges more stringent oversight. The report by the independent scientists said an incendiary study by water ecologists last year appeared to be right in its contention that toxic substances downstream from the developments do not occur naturally. link 

February 2011: Tar sands more polluting than other fuels. A leaked study for the European Commission says average greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands are 23% higher than oil from other fossil fuels. EU directives require oil companies operating in the EU to reduce emissions by 6% by 2020, and Canada fears these rules will be copied by other countries. link        

August 2010: Carcinogen levels in oil sands waste water increase. Levels of cadmium, lead and nickel in giant 'tailings' lakes have increased as much as 30% in four year according to new government data. The country's five active oil sands mines released around 50,000 tons of potentially harmful pollutants in waste lakes between 2006 and 2009. link

February 2011: Ontario targets 10.7GW renewables by 2018. Ontario’s  energy plan represents a 450% growth in installed wind capacity in the next seven years, from 1.59GW to 7GW. The new energy plan involves the installation of new transmission system upgrades and is expected to lead to the creation of at least 12,500 new jobs. The plan is also anticipated to lead to more than $12.5bn in new investment in the province, and $22m in annual lease payments to landowners. The country has more than 4.15GW of installed wind energy capacity, close to 1.59GW of which is in Ontario. Quebec and Alberta each have less than half this level of wind power, with 663MW and 806MW of installed wind capacity, respectively. link  

October 2010: Solar and Wind farms to add 300MW of renewable energy. Ontario welcomes the official opening of the world's largest solar photovoltaic (PV) farm and milestones for two new wind projects in South-West Ontario. The province has attracted over $1 billion in private sector investment and created more than 1,400 construction jobs through three renewable energy projects that will produce enough electricity to power about 83,000 homes each year, replacing dirty, smog-producing coal with clean, renewable energy. These projects will add almost 300 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy capacity to the more than 8,000 MW of new cleaner power that has been created since 2003.  link

April 2010: 95GW of potential solar energy in southeastern Ontario. Southeastern Ontario is capable of producing solar energy almost equal to the amount of power generated by all nuclear reactors in the United States, according to studies conducted by the Applied Sustainability Research Group at Queen’s University. The studies are the first to investigate the region’s solar energy potential and yielded unexpected results. “We came up with enormous numbers and we were being conservative. There about 95 gigawatts of potential power just in southeastern Ontario - that shows there is massive potential,” said Joshua Pearce, a mechanical engineering professor at the university and leader of the research group.  link 
January 2010: A consortium of Korean companies to invest C$7 billion to generate 2500MW of wind energy and solar power in Ontario, creating 16,000 jobs. link
August  2010: Siemens A.G. bagged another wind turbine supply deal in Ontario worth 600 megawatts, and was also commissioned to build the Canadian province’s first wind turbine blade factory. The 600-MW order is for the first phase of a 2,000-MW project The new turbine development will provide Ontario consumers enough electricity each year to power more than 240,000 homes.  link

September 2009: Ontario on track to eliminate coal power. Ontario Power Generation currently has 6,315 MW of coal-fired capacity provided by 15 units that operate at four plants across Ontario. Four coal units - Units 3 and 4 at Nanticoke and Units 1 and 2 at Lambton, with a combined capacity of 1,910 MW, will be permanently shut down in late 2010. The closure of these four units is a step towards meeting Ontario's commitment to fight climate change - the elimination of coal-fired generation by the end of 2014. link

July 2009: - and a setback for nuclear power. Two years into a $20 billion nuclear upgrade project meant to replace aging reactors with next-generation technology, the Ontario government postponed the entire process citing excessive cost and uncertainties involving the ownership status of the sole Canadian bidder. Ontario receives 50% of its energy from nuclear sources. In a statement, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance said the government’s actions “hint at a more enlightened approach to Ontario’s energy future - one that favors plentiful green and clean alternatives over high-cost, high-risk nuclear power.”  link

September 2011: Banner year for Canada's wind energy. By the end of 2011 Canada's total wind capacity will surpass 5,300 MW, enough to power 1.5 million homes a year. In 2001, total installed wind capacity was only 198 MW. Another 6,000 MW of wind projects are in the pipeline for the next five years. link

June 2010: Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Canada will phase out older coal-fired power plants to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions as it moves to make natural-gas fired plants the new clean-power standard. The new standards, expected to be firmed up by early 2011, will force electricity producers to phase out older, high-emitting coal-fired plants and require newer facilities to match the lower greenhouse gas emissions of more efficient natural-gas fired plants. link

See page on Keystone project as it affects the USA here

August  2011: Canada proposes crackdown on coal-fired power. The Canadian government has proposed long-awaited rules that could result in the phasing out of coal-fired power plants that do not incorporate carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Announcing the proposals last Friday, environment minister Peter Kent said the new standards would come into effect from 2015 and force developers of coal-fired power plants to ensure they do not exceed the emissions levels achieved by cleaner gas-fired power plants. The proposed rules contain a number of exemptions for CCS demonstration plants and emergency facilities, but if adopted they would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants that do not feature CCS. As such, the government expects the move to spur investment in alternative natural gas and renewable energy technologies. link

Canada isn't alone in using clean coal as a smokescreen to slip increasingly unpopular dirty energy past the public and regulators. Whereas the US Congress is expected to boost America's clean coal hand-out to $3.4 billion (in its $787 billion stimulus bill) there is, however, a big difference between the actions of the US and those of Canada: Obama's Washington is not pursuing the technology at the total exclusion of actual clean energy options like solar, wind and efficiency technologies with $78.61bn aimed at green projects. Not so in Canada. The new pro-coal budget effectively killed all support for the nation's ecoENERGY Program for Renewable Energy (equivalent to America's Production Tax Credit for renewables). The program was the nation's main support mechanism for developing renewable energy. The Pembina Institute, a Canada-based sustainable energy think tank, reacted to the budget defeat asking: “Why put so many of the nation's energy eggs in the wildly expensive and still unproven clean coal basket?” The answer is in the Alberta tar sands - one of the most climate-destructive projects on Earth and Canada's top energy priority. The federal government and the oil industry have been on a PR mission to persuade the public that CCS technology can transform the unpopular though highly lucrative tar sands into a cleaner energy source.  link

Arguments that tar sands expansion can go forward on the basis that CCS will "fix" its carbon footprint are not defensible. CCS would likely only reduce 10-20% of the overall greenhouse gases associated with its total lifecycle emissions making it still dirtier than conventional fuel, and it is fraught with technical challenges. A 2008 Canadian government CCS task force found that "only a small portion of the CO2 streams are currently amenable for CCS." This is because facilities in the tar sands are diverse and geographically dispersed requiring the construction of a massive infrastructure. There are also substantial transportation emissions associated with production, many of the carbon streams are not pure enough to capture adequately, and we are only starting to understand the greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands that are associated with land use change. CCS also does not address the myriad of other environmental challenges in the tar sands nor does it address the issue of downstream combustion emissions.  link    

(Check here for more on CCS - carbon capture sequestration.)