Chris Severson-Baker, Director of the Pembina Institute’s Energy Watch program, emphasized the importance of ending North America’s reliance on fossil fuels at the Western Governor’s North American Energy Summit in Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 15–17, 2004.
Chris countered the position of keynote speaker, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, that Americans concerned about energy supply security should look no further than Alberta’s vast oilsands, coal, natural gas and coal bed methane reserves as well as other fossil fuel reserves in north-eastern British Columbia and Arctic Canada. Chris pointed out that the environmental impact intensity of fossil fuel production is increasing while conventional sources of energy are simultaneously being depleted.
“Canadians will not accept further degradation of the environment just for the sake of maintaining the supply of cheap oil,” Chris stated.
Klein did not stop at simply promoting fossil fuels; he offered a list of criticisms of renewable energy, beginning by saying, “Wind is an eyesore to ranchers.”
Klein’s attack on renewables was in sharp contrast to the views expressed by the US governors, who spoke enthusiastically about the future role of renewable energy supplies. Several US governors discussed targets of 20 to 30 per cent of electricity coming from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2020, Chris reported.
To find out more about the Pembina Institute’s views on the need for North America to transition away from a complete reliance on oil and move towards a sustainable supply of fuel, refer to Chris’s speaking notes below.
Chris Severson-Baker Speaking notes
Western Governor’s North American Energy Summit — Oil Production and Exploration Breakout Panel Presentation
Albuquerque, New Mexico April 15–17, 2004.
I work for an environmental organization called the Pembina Institute. It was formed about two decades ago as a grassroots oil and gas watchdog group in the oil and gas town of Drayton Valley in Alberta, Canada.
The Pembina Institute has gone on to become one of the largest environmental organizations in Canada. It promotes environmental, social and economic sustainability through the development of practical solutions for businesses, governments, individuals and communities. The Pembina Institute provides policy research leadership on climate change, energy policy, green economics, renewable energy, and environmental governance, as well as extensive formal and public education programs.
I direct the Energy Watch Program, where our focus is on advancing best practices and policies that minimize the impact of energy production. We also produce information that can be used directly by people affected by energy developments to protect the environment.
Panel Members were asked to address two questions:
1 What factors should guide the future of oil production and exploration?
I will share with you an environmental organization’s perspective, focusing on the need to prevent the intensification of impacts associated with oil exploration and production.
2 What steps can be taken to ensure reliable supplies of oil into the future?
As an environmentalist, this is not a question that keeps me up at night. I might not tell you if I knew!
To me, this question shows that North Americans are stuck in thinking that cheap and abundant oil is the only key to economic prosperity.
The fixation on oil is dangerous too. Over time it will only become more risky to secure and more costly to use.
We need to shift our thinking about oil. The real question — that even this oil panel should examine — is:
What steps can be taken to ensure a reliable and sustainable transportation fuel supply, as well as material feedstock in the future?
We need a transition strategy that gets us from a complete reliance on oil to depending on hydrogen derived from sustainable sources.
However, the need for and production of oil is not going to change in the short term so, for the next few minutes, I will comment on what ought to be done within the current oil-dominated paradigm.
So, what is wrong with the goal of seeking to maintain cheap and abundant supplies of oil?
To begin with —
- The impact intensity of conventional oil is rising. More conventional wells and associated infrastructure are required to produce the same amount of conventional oil, or less, compared to the past.
- Conventional oil is being replaced with high–impact, intensive sources of oil — heavy oil and oilsands.
- Increasingly complex and expensive frontier developments are also more impact intensive.
The key point is that North Americans will not accept this intensification of environmental impacts.
The general public, landowners, and First Nations will not accept further degradation of the environment just for the sake of maintaining the supply of cheap oil.
Two examples of sources of oil that the current US administration counts on to help them maintain a cheap and abundant oil supply:
- Oil from Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska
- Canada’s Oilsands
Both of these sources come with a hefty environmental price tag.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge –(ANWR)
- ANWR represents the only 5% of the Alaska North Slope not already open to drilling.
- ANWR is a pristine wilderness area in one of the most sensitive ecosystems in the world. The coastal plain — the first part that companies want to develop — is
- a nesting ground for many of the 160 different bird species that reside there in the summer
- the most important area for den sites for polar bears in the US
- critical habitat for the Porcupine Caribou herd, which spends part of its life cycle in Canada.
- Environmentalists and many others believe that the ANWR should be completely left alone. Even if companies use the best practices available today, drilling and production of oil is not compatible with the goal of preservation.
- The cost is too high for what you get. It represents six months of oil based on 100% of US domestic consumption.
- Drilling in ANWR is not the solution. In no way does it fit with the goal of achieving a sustainable transportation fuel supply for the future
Alberta’s Oilsands
- It is estimated that there is more proven oil in Alberta’s oilsands deposits than the proven reserves remaining in Saudi Arabia.
- Companies have announced plans to spend over US$65 billion on new and existing projects to develop the oilsands.
But the problem is the rate of oilsands development is not sustainable.
The environmental impacts that result from a barrel of oil from oilsands are substantially higher than conventional oil.
- The oilsands require huge energy inputs. Heated water is used to help separate oil from sand coming from the mines. In deeper oilsands deposits steam is injected to liquefy the oil. The oil from the oilsands is as thick as tar, so it must be upgraded using high temperatures and pressures before actual refining can start. As a result of the energy needs, by 2010 the oilsands are expected to consume 25% of Alberta’s gas production. By 2020 the amount of gas required — about 1 billion cubic feet per day — will be almost equivalent to the capacity of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline.
- Combined, the oilsands projects produce large volumes of acidifying emissions, air toxics, and greenhouse gas emissions. They require huge amounts of fresh water, damage the functioning of ecosystems in large areas of the boreal forest and permanently destroy wetland areas. They generate massive quantities of mine tailings ponds and other toxic wastes.
(Talk about flying over oilsands projects.)
It is becoming clear that the limits of current technology to minimize impacts from the oilsands have been reached. Unless there are a series of major technological breakthroughs, further expansion of oilsands development will only come at the expense of Northern Alberta’s air, land and water.
(Talk about consultation over tailings pond.)
Concern about the environmental consequences of developing the oilsands will limit development of the resource. Don’t bank on the oilsands to solve North America’s oil supply problems.
Maximizing oilsands development at the present rate will lead to impacts that are impossible to accept. It also does not fit with the goal of achieving a sustainable transportation fuel supply for the future.
How do we achieve a sustainable supply of transportation fuel and a sustainable supply of material feedstock?
On the Supply Side:
The oil industry should stay out of protected areas.
In places where the oil industry is permitted to drill, they should use the very best practices and technologies available to minimize the intensification of impacts that is occurring.
But, if we are serious about making a transition, we will need to go a lot further than that.
The government should level the playing field by systematically removing all subsidies and incentives that promote unsustainable energy development, including allowing environmental impacts.
For example, the oil industry should be not be protected by taxpayers against international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases. Even though Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol, the oil and gas sector only has to reduce part way — the rest of the economy picks up the slack.
Oilsands projects pay only 1% royalty until capital investment, expansions and major retrofits have been paid for. The result is that, while oilsands represent over half of Alberta’s production, they generate only about 10% of the royalties when compared to conventional oil.
Then we should tilt the playing field again — this time in favour of sustainable sources of energy by providing subsidies and incentives, especially for implementation and commercialization of renewable energy technology that already exists.
Oil companies that succeed in th