Evidence of meeting #23 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bitumen.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Research Scientist, CANMET Energy Technology Centre (CETC) - Devon, Department of Natural Resources
Are you referring to in-surface mining operations?
Research Scientist, CANMET Energy Technology Centre (CETC) - Devon, Department of Natural Resources
The problem with that is they could use it, but they would have to treat it first before they could use it, because the chemistry of the water affects bitumen recovery. For example, if the ions get too high or it becomes too salty, bitumen recovery goes down, so a lot of the resource is lost to the waste stream. If they were told to use more brackish water, they would have to treat it first to remove certain salts especially and also to reduce the salinity, depending on what the degree of salinity is. It just cannot be used as is.
Senior Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute
Also, I don't know if there would be the volume of saline water available. It has to be drawn from deep down under the earth. When one looks at the huge volumes that are drawn from the Athabasca River, to obtain comparable volumes over such long periods of time from deep saline aquifers.... They are recharged very slowly. I know that in the Cold Lake area for the in situ operations it's been worked out that there may just be about enough saline water in the aquifer they are using for the three companies that are operating in that area, and they use much less water than is used for the mining. After about 50 years, that deep saline aquifer will probably be exhausted, and then it will take a very long time to recharge because it's so deep. Even the deep saline aquifers are not an inexhaustible supply of water.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you.
We have time for one more, and then we have a point of order, I think, from Madame DeBellefeuille.
Did you want to go ahead?
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Do you want me to make my point in front of the witnesses?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
No, I understood you had a point of order. You wanted to ask for the tabling of documents?
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Ms. McCuaig-Johnston provided me with numbers in answer to a question I asked, and I wanted to know if the deputy minister and the parliamentary secretary might provide a written follow-up, in order for me to add this information to the file. I do not know if the numbers the witness gave me were for 2005-06 or for the year 2004-05. It is however important to me, in order to gain a better understanding of this file, that things be more precise. I would therefore very much like to be provided with a written document from the deputy minister.
Would that be possible, Mr. Chairman?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay. I think that's clear. If you need clarification, the clerk has the request. So we will get that information to you.
To wrap up, Mr. Tonks, for five minutes.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here.
I'm not sure I'm going to be able to ask the right questions, so just bear with me. I think the committee is attempting to understand two parallel parts of the process. We have the cumulative process that is going on, which has resulted in concerns being raised by the Pembina Institute and others with respect to tailings; groundwater, shallow and deep; and the entire ecosystem, if you will. We have a process that is cumulative in terms of identifying the degree of those effects on the environment. On the other hand, while you have the cumulative analysis, you also have another regulatory regime that is an ongoing approach, which has been described as environmental assessment. You have a joint review panel that looks at it application by application. You also have CONRAD, which is looking at a consolidated tailings development scheme, if you will. And you also have new technologies coming in that deal with cumulative problems. But we fear they're not being implemented quickly enough; Pembina says they won't be implemented until 2050.
I guess the question I would like to posit on behalf of the committee is, where are the crossovers? When we had the National Energy Board, the question was, what regulatory regime or levers do you have to intervene with respect to getting particular action? So you have a cumulative regulatory process, out of which, obviously, there are certain recommendations that will come out, for example, perhaps in a bilateral agreement. Where is the crossover where that information is then fed into the environmental assessment, which determines whether there is going to be a precautionary process that will then click in? That's what the public wants to know, and that's what we're charged with in this committee. That's why we're going up to have a look at what's going on up there. But I think the committee would also like to have a sense of what that comprehensive regulatory framework is, both cumulative and ongoing.
I know that's a long way to go to get an answer.
Mr. Vollmershausen, is there perhaps any sort of ORP chart that shows how those crossovers happen, if they do, and if they don't, who's going to recommend they should be?
Chair, Board Member, Mackenzie River Basin Board
I'll take a small stab at it. With reference to the bilateral agreement notion that you mentioned, and that's the bilateral agreement associated with the Mackenzie River Basin Board, how that would work.... For example, the one that would be of most concern to the oil sands area would be the Alberta-NWT bilateral agreement, where they would worry about what's crossing the Alberta-NWT border and the Slave River. They would worry about volumes and water quality, and there are probably various categories within those two main subjects. They would reach an agreement on that. The NWT is very interested in what they receive, so there would be some pretty serious negotiations to determine volumes and water quality.
Once that's done, Alberta's responsibility would be to make sure it manages the water within its jurisdiction while it's there to meet whatever those targets and criteria are. It's not unlike another board, the Prairie Provinces Water Board, where 50% of the flow of eastward-flowing streams out of Alberta has to be passed to Saskatchewan. It's monitored very carefully and worried about a lot, but it's the same principle exactly, and the jurisdictions take that very seriously. So that would be one mechanism that would certainly become part of the org chart you're talking about.
Another part of it, and Mary referred to it as a bit problematic, is the regional sustainable development strategy that Alberta put in around the oil sands area. It was to do with a Suncor project back in the late nineties; I forget the exact date. The Cumulative Environmental Management Association is designed to take that and run with it and make things happen, but it's devoted to cumulative effects. That's what it's called. That's why it's there.
I don't remember the exact number. I know when the RSDS was put in place, the existing and planned project value was in the $20 billion range, and not very many years after that it was up in the $80 billion or $90 billion range. That's the pace issue Mary refers to. The problem CEMA is having is coping in a multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven mechanism.
Many committees know it's a demanding process to try to reach consensus on anything, and with a lot of players around the table and the pace of development, they're simply having trouble keeping up.
Pembina's references to doing something to instill energy and resources and so on into that process, to upgrade their ability to work, is important to Pembina, and they make that clear whenever they have an opportunity. That would be another part of it.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Who invokes the precautionary principle? In a joint panel, when do the alarm bells go off and they base the analysis we have...? These are terms and conditions for the environmental assessment to be approved. They may involve technology. They may involve a chronological order of development, a pace, a rhythm, a number of things. When does that happen?
Chair, Board Member, Mackenzie River Basin Board
At that stage, it happens project by project at the moment. With both decision-makers as part of that joint process, be it provincial or federal, when they're ready to render a decision on that project, those kinds of insights and recommendations that have emerged from a lot of scientific and very good work of a lot of people...that's where it would occur in terms of “yes, under these conditions, with these caveats”.
Senior Policy Analyst, Pembina Institute
That's where the federal government still does have a role, and maybe it could exercise that role with more enthusiasm than has been apparent in the past.
One small example is that even though we don't yet have an instream flow needs water management framework, it could be that at the next hearing, somebody should say, right, well, we're not going to be able to allocate more water from the river, and maybe the company should only go ahead if it makes provisions for off-site storage, so that they have resources for when the river.... That's something that could be put into a specific project approval.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you, Mr. Tonks.
And thank you to our witnesses today. It was an excellent meeting, and I very much appreciate your preparation and also how you responded to the questions.
With that, we are going to adjourn until 6:30 a.m. on November 20 in Calgary. I look forward to seeing you all bright and early on our way to Fort McMurray.
Thank you again, and bonne fin de semaine.
