HARDING: TECK should be judged by full impact. . . .

HARDING: TECK should be judged by full impact. . . .

Postby Oscar » Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:18 am

Teck’s Frontier Oil Sands Project Should Be Judged by Full Impact

By Jim Harding February 19, 2020

The feds will soon decide on Teck Resources Frontier project in northern Alberta. The Liberals likely feel caught between a rock and a hard place, as when they purchased Trans-Mountain Pipeline (TMX). But much has changed; Canadians are steadily more aware of the climate emergency.

United Conservative Premier Kenney claims that Frontier is a “litmus test for national unity”. Alberta’s environment minister adds, “Albertans will not accept anything other than a green light for this project”.

Meanwhile, an emerging majority from coast to coast to coast, are becoming more unified over the climate emergency, and worry that Canada won’t meet its Paris targets. Gary Mason spoke for many when he wrote, in The Globe and Mail, that “It is no longer Alberta’s God-given right to pollute…”

If Alberta separated, it would have the highest per capita emissions of any country. Oil sands projects emit 70 million tonnes (MT) yearly, 10% of Canada’s total. Industry researchers admit that, by 2026, existing projects could exceed the 100 MT cap. Without Frontier, achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is hard to imagine.

Canada’s emissions remain high; our 2017 per capita footprint was 19 tonnes, just behind Australia’s 22 tonnes, which topped the G20. Oil and gas emissions are up 84% since the 1990s, to 195 MT, over one-quarter of Canada’s total.

By 2017, emissions from the main oil-extractors, Alberta and Saskatchewan, totaled 351 MT; nearly equal to the rest of Canada, where emissions fell to 365 MT, from 431 in 2005.

Teck says Frontier would create another 4.1 MT yearly over 41 years of extraction. Others calculate 6 MT. Either way, this ignores massive “downstream” emissions from refining and end-use combustion.

Frontier would export 260,000 barrels of oil daily. The U.S. EPA estimates “0.43 metric tons C02/barrel” of crude oil. Bitumen would be more. Overall, emissions from Frontier would be more like 40 MT annually, ten times what Teck claims.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries account for emissions within borders. However, it is total global emissions that are fueling global warming and more extreme weather events, everywhere. Every country must work to lower total global emissions or we will all face the consequences.

Meanwhile, the project is precarious. Teck requires $20 billion to proceed. Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi says a red-light stopping Frontier “would question whether Canada is a good place to invest”. He ignores accelerating international divestment in fossil fuels. Investors are very nervous about Alberta’s $100 billion liability for abandoned, “orphan” wells.

Frontier requires that TMX be completed; the price tag has gone up 70%, to $12.6 billion. Frontier requires $75 dollars a barrel, as a break-even price, which is far-fetched in the emerging energy market. 2,500 permanent jobs seem seductive, but each requires hundreds of millions in capital. “Jobs at any cost” won’t create a sustainable future.

Frontier would be near UNESCO’s World Heritage Wood Buffalo National Park. Ecological degradation of the staggering 24,000 hectares (292 square kilometres) involved should be enough to stop the project. It would destroy 2,000 hectares of old growth forest and an astonishing 14,000 hectares of wetlands. It is unfathomable how the Alberta-Canada panel could admit “significant and permanent impacts” in such a “high species, diversity” area and still say the mine is in the “public interest”. It was a cop-out to admit that Frontier “may make it more difficult to achieve Canada’s targets” and then say climate targets were “beyond the scope and authority of the panel”

Premier Kenney tries to make this about appeasing Western alienation. Some try to make it a litmus test for Reconciliation. A lot is made of Indigenous support for Frontier. It’s time we stopped stereotyping. Support for toxic resource extraction is always tied to perceived, short-term local benefits, rather than long-term global and local impacts.

Yet, we simply must quickly shift from fossil fuels, while ensuring a just transition. Climate denial and distraction are in no one’s interest.

There’s rarely “good news” about climate. But the International Energy Agency IEA) just reported that global emissions didn’t rise in 2019. We are positioned to start lowering emissions, by 7% a year this decade, to avert catastrophic tipping points. In this global context, the federal cabinet should know what to do.

Premier Kenney likely stands ready to escalate rhetoric. And, looking south of the border, we know the dangers in this. However, Alberta’s hot political air is not as dangerous to our grandchildren as a steadily heating planet.

- - -

Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies and a founding director of the Qu’Appelle Valley Environmental Association (QVEA.CA).

306-332-4492 djharding@sasktel.net
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9078
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: HARDING: TECK should be judged by full impact. . . .

Postby Oscar » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:20 am

OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU, and MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, J. WILKINSON

February 21, 2020    

Teck’s Frontier Oil Sands Project Should Be Judged by Full Impact: 

Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Wilkinson,

Your government will soon decide on Teck Resources Frontier project in northern Alberta. You may feel caught between a rock and a hard place, as when the federal government purchased Trans-Mountain Pipeline (TMX). But much has changed; Canadians are steadily becoming more aware of the climate emergency.

United Conservative Premier Jason Kenney claims that Frontier is a “litmus test for national unity”. Alberta’s environment minister adds, “Albertans will not accept anything other than a green light for this project”.

Meanwhile, an emerging majority of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, are becoming more unified over the need for action to address the climate emergency. We worry that Canada won’t meet its Paris targets. Gary Mason spoke for many Canadians when he wrote, in The Globe and Mail, that “It is no longer Alberta’s God-given right to pollute…”

Alberta’s Emissions Problematic:

Alberta’s rising emissions are problematic. If Alberta separated, it would have the highest per capita emissions of any country. Oil sands projects already emit 80 million tonnes (MT) yearly, over 10% of Canada’s total. The Canadian Energy Research Institute predicts that, by 2026, existing projects will exceed the 100 MT cap that your government negotiated with the previous Notley NDP government. Existing projects would emit 110 MT by 2030.  Without Frontier going ahead, achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is already getting hard to imagine.

Canada’s emissions remain high; our 2017 per capita footprint was 19 tonnes, just behind Australia’s 22 tonnes, which topped the G20. Oil and gas sector emissions across our country are up 84% since the 1990s. Emitting 195 MT by 2017, over one-quarter of our country’s total, this is Canada’s largest greenhouse gas emitting sector.

By 2017, emissions from the main oil extractors, Alberta and Saskatchewan, totalled 351 MT; nearly equal to the rest of Canada, where emissions fell to 365 MT, from 431 in 2005. While most other provinces have been lowering emissions, those from Alberta and Saskatchewan have continued to rise. This can’t continue.

Teck Resources Global Emissions:

Teck Resources says Frontier would add another 4.1 MT yearly over 41 years of extraction. Others calculate 6 MT. Either way, this ignores massive “downstream” emissions from refining and end-use combustion.

Frontier would export 260,000 barrels of oil daily. The U.S. EPA estimates “0.43 metric tons C02/barrel” of crude oil. Bitumen would be more. Overall, actual emissions stemming from Frontier’s oil sand project would be more like 40 MT annually, ten times what Teck claims.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries account for emissions within borders. However, it is total global emissions that are fuelling global warming and more extreme weather events, everywhere. Every country must work to lower total global emissions or we will all face the catastrophic consequences.

Economic Viability Questionable:

Meanwhile, the Frontier project is precarious. Teck requires $20 billion to proceed. Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi says a red light stopping Frontier “would question whether Canada is a good place to invest”. He ignores accelerating international divestment in fossil fuels. Investors are very nervous about Alberta’s $100 billion liability for abandoned, “orphan” wells.

Frontier requires that TMX be completed; the price tag for the expansion has gone up 70%, to $12.6 billion. With initial acquisition costs, the total cost is now more than $16 billion. This kind of public investment should not be going into the Brown economy but towards the low-carbon Green economy. Furthermore, Frontier requires $75 dollars a barrel, as a break-even price, which is far-fetched in the emerging energy market. 2,500 permanent jobs seem seductive, but each requires hundreds of millions in capital. “Jobs at any cost” won’t create a sustainable future. 

Ecological Impacts Unacceptable:

Frontier would be near UNESCO’s World Heritage Wood Buffalo National Park. Ecological degradation of the staggering 24,000 hectares (292 square kilometres) involved should be enough to stop the project. It would destroy 2,000 hectares of old growth forest and an astonishing 14,000 hectares of wetlands. It is unfathomable how the Alberta-Canada panel could admit “significant and permanent impacts” in such a “high species, diversity” area and still say the mine is in the “public interest”.

It was a cop-out for the panel to admit that Frontier “may make it more difficult to achieve Canada’s targets” and then say climate targets were “beyond the scope and authority of the panel”.

Not Fundamentally About Western Alienation or Reconciliation:

Premier Kenney tries to make this about appeasing Western alienation. Some try to make it a litmus test for Reconciliation.  A lot is made of Indigenous support for Frontier. It’s time we stopped stereotyping. Support for toxic resource extraction is always tied to perceived, short-term local benefits, rather than long-term global and local impacts. Indigenous land rights must be respected and protected and so, too, must the health of the whole planet.

We simply must quickly shift from fossil fuels, while ensuring a just transition. Climate denial and distraction are in no one’s interest.

There’s rarely “good news” about climate. But the International Energy Agency IEA) just reported that global emissions didn’t rise in 2019. They, nevertheless, remain at an unacceptable 33 gigatonnes. However, the international community is now positioned to start lowering emissions, by 7% a year this decade, to avert catastrophic tipping points. 

In this global context, the federal cabinet should know what is the right thing to do. You simply must act in the interests of upcoming generations.

Premier Kenney likely stands ready to escalate rhetoric. And, looking south of the border, we know the dangers in this. However, Alberta’s hot political air is not as dangerous to our grandchildren as a steadily heating planet.

Please share this with your cabinet and caucus colleagues.

We look forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely, 

Jim Harding, Lorna Evans, Randy Lebell and Greg Van Luven,
Directors, Qu’Appelle Valley Environmental Association (QVEA.CA).
Box 506, Fort Qu’Appelle, SK.  S0G 1S0   qvea2016@gmail.com
For more information contact: 306-332-4492
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9078
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm


Return to Oil/Tarsands

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron