Backgrounder: Kearl Tar Sands and Greenhouse Gases

The Kearl Tar Sands Project will be responsible for average emissions of 3.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. This is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 800,000 passenger vehicles in Canada.

The Kearl Project will contribute 0.51% of Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions and 1.7% of Alberta’s (based on 2002 data).

The Kearl Project is one of numerous oil sands projects that have been approved in recent years. The Federal Government has failed to adequately address the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in all these projects.

The greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of a barrel of synthetic crude oil from oil sands is approximately three times higher than the emissions associated with the production of a barrel of conventional crude oil.

Annual greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands plants in 2007 are expected to be between 39.3 and 41.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The tar sands are projected to be the single largest contributor to growth in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, responsible for nearly half of “business as usual” growth in emissions between 2003 and 2010. 

On March 2nd, 2008 it was reported that the Government of Canada was warned two years ago that it was at risk from legal challenges over the way environmental assessments for the oil sands were being conducted.

An excerpt from the Federal Court of Canada Kearl decision (paragraphs 78-79) relating to greenhouse gas emissions:

The evidence shows that intensity-based targets place limits on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of bitumen produced. The absolute amount of greenhouse gas pollution from oil sands development will continue to rise under intensity-based targets because of the planned increase in total production of bitumen. The Panel dismissed as insignificant the greenhouse gas emissions without any rationale as to why the intensity-based mitigation would be effective to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to 800,000 passenger vehicles, to a level of insignificance. Without this vital link, the clear and cogent articulation of the reasons behind the Panel’s conclusion, the deference accorded to its expertise is not triggered.

While I agree that the Panel is not required to comment specifically on each and every detail of the Project, given the amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted to the atmosphere and given the evidence presented that the intensity based targets will not address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, it was incumbent upon the Panel to provide a justification for its recommendation on this particular issue. By its silence, the Panel short circuits the two step decision making process envisioned by the CEAA which calls for an informed decision by a responsible authority. For the decision to be informed it must be nourished by a robust understanding of Project effects.  Accordingly, given the absence of an explanation or rationale, I am of the view that the Panel erred in law by failing to provide reasoned basis for its conclusion as mandated by s. 34(c)(i) of the CEAA.