DEEP

TROUBLE
THE REALITY
OF IN SITU
TAR SANDS
www.greenpeace.ca

OPERATIONS
 CONTENTS
1 _Introduction
3 _Climate Change
5 _Air Pollution
7 _Water Contamination
8 _Water Use
9 _Landscape and Habitat Disturbance
11 _First Nations’ Treaty Rights
12 _Does the World Need Oil from the Tar Sands?

RESEARCH AND WRITING

Keith Stewart works on energy policy and green energy solutions for Greenpeace Canada,
building on 14 years of experience as an environmental researcher and advocate. He has a
PhD from York University and has taught courses on environmental policy and politics at the
University of Toronto as well as at York, Trent and Ryerson universities.
Melina Laboucan-Massimo works on supporting and building community resistance to the
tar sands as a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada. She grew up in the
Peace River region of northern Alberta, where in situ development is expanding rapidly, and
is a member of the Lubicon Cree First Nation. Melina has been working as an advocate for
Indigenous rights for the past 10 years. Before joining Greenpeace, Melina was pursuing her
Masters in Environmental Studies at York University.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Greenpeace would like to thank all those who graciously shared their personal experiences
with in situ tar sands operations. In particular, we would like to thank the Beaver Lake Cree
First Nation and the law firm of Woodward and Company, LLP.

DESIGN
Brigitte Binet

PHOTO CREDITS
Cover : Aerial view of Petro-Canada SAGD site in the Boreal Forest north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, July 2009, ©Jiri Rezac, Greenpeace /
p.1 Alberta Pipeline, ©GFWC. / p.2 Waschuk Pipeline, ©Jasonwoodhead (flickr) / p.3 Jingletown (fotopedia) / p.5 © John Woods,
Greenpeace / p.6 Suncor, Chris Schwarz / p.7 Source: oilgoneeasy.com / p.8 Source: twflood.com / p.9 © Richard Grimshaw /
p.10 Caribou, © Wayne Sawchuck, Satellite Foster Creek project: source: Google Earth / p.11 Beaver Lake, by Maren Van Nostrand /
p.12 © Greenpeace | EM / p.14 Satellite Exxon Cold Lake tar sands project, source: Google Earth
 INTRODUCTION
In an effort to distance themselves from the powerful,
but negative, images of open-pit mining in the Alberta
tar sands, many oil companies are now touting the
advantages of their in situ (or underground) operations.
A supposed alternative to open-pit mining not only has
some public relations benefits, but masks what is really
necessity as virtue, as over 80 per cent of the oil locked
up in the Canadian tar sands are too deep to be mined.
These deeper deposits of bitumen (a tar-like substance
which can be processed into synthetic crude oil) must
be exploited through in situ extraction. The most
common method is known as steam-assisted gravity
drainage (SAGD), which involves heating the bitumen
with super-hot steam from an underground pipe so that
it begins to flow. The bitumen, together with much of the
water generated by the cooling of the injected steam,
can then be pumped to the surface from another pipe
laid beneath the one that brings the steam.
In situ extraction has been used in the tar sands for
over 20 years, but production is growing rapidly and is
projected to become the largest source of crude oil in
Canada.
Yet while the impacts of in situ tar sands operations are
less visible than those of open-pit mining, the impacts
on the environment and local communities are no less
real; in many cases, such as with greenhouse gas
emissions or the sheer expanse of landscape that is
affected, they are worse.
This report examines the various claims made by the
oil industry with respect to the supposed benefits of
in situ tar sands operations, and compares them with
the evidence from the industry itself, from government
documents (including briefing notes obtained under the
Access to Information Act), and from the peer-reviewed
scientific literature.
We have also included first-hand accounts from
people in the affected area. They have a direct
experience, that is not being captured in government
or academic reports, of how their communities are
being treated as a sacrifice zone in order to feed the
broader society’s addiction to ever-dirtier oil.
It doesn’t have to be this way. As the world runs out of
cheap, easily-accessible oil, we have a choice.
We can pursue the last drop of oil, using vast amounts
of money, natural gas, and water to literally melt the oil
out of the ground in northern Alberta.
Or we can choose to invest in going beyond oil. That
won’t happen overnight, but it can be done, over the
same timeframe and with the same resources that
would go into expanding the tar sands.
This choice should not, however, be made based on
a series of sugar-coated half-truths about in situ tar
sands operations.
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS
VOICES FROM AFFECTED
COMMUNITIES
“traditional
I look at what is happening to our
hunting lands, and I lie
awake at night. I worry that this is not
just the end of our way of life, but the 1
end of all of our lives. 1
”
— Chief Al Lameman, Beaver Lake Cree First Nation
1
Personal communication (February 14, 2011).
 WHAT’S IN A NAME?

Carrie Tait, “Oil Sands? Bite your tongue”, The Financial Post,
Friday, November 13, 2009
“First they were tar sands. Then they were oil sands. Now?
Enhanced oil projects.
“At least according to En-Cana Corp. and its oil-sands spinoff,
Cenovus Energy Inc. The pair want to distinguish their oil-sands
operations, which employ the underground and more carbon-
intensive steam-assisted gravity (SAGD) drainage method, from
the more aesthetically offensive open-pit mining efforts that are
accompanied by deadly tailings ponds. As a result, the two firms
have ditched the term ‘oil sands’ from their lexicon and replaced it
with ‘enhanced oil projects’ or just ‘oil projects.’”

Figure 2.2 Growth Case - Western Canada Oil Sands & Conventional Production
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS

FIGURE 1.
GROWTH CASE - WESTERN CANADA OIL SANDS & CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION

thousand barrels per day

5,000
Actual Forecast

4,000

June ‘09 Forecast

3,000

2,000 In Situ
2
Mining

1,000 Conventional Heavy

Conventional Light

Pentanes
00
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025

Source: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Crude Oil: Forecast, Markets and Pipelines (June 2010).
 CLIMATE CHANGE
THE CLAIM:
“We will continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per
barrel of production.”
— Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 2  for 44 per cent of the anticipated increase in Canada’s
THE REALITY:
Greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil in Canada
have been steadily increasing as oil from the tar sands has
become a larger share of total oil production, and absolute
emissions have been rising as oil output has grown.
While the emissions per barrel from tar sands production
declined in the 1990–2006 period, this trend is expected
to be reversed if in situ production, which has more
greenhouse gas emissions per barrel than either tar sands
mining operations or conventional oil extraction, grows to
be a larger share of total oil production.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Environment Canada (the federal government’s
environment ministry)
Environment Canada projects that the oil sands emissions
will increase to 108 million tonnes in 2020, accounting
GHG emissions between 2006 and 2020.5 This projected
increase is greater than the entire 2008 national emissions
of Norway (54 million tonnes) or Denmark (64 million
tonnes).
Natural Resources Canada (federal energy
ministry) internal briefing notes obtained under
the Access to Information Act
“This trend [reduced GHG emissions per barrel from 1990
to 2006] may be reversed in coming years for several
reasons:
The dramatic energy efficiency gains of the past two
decades are unlikely to be continued in the future
unless there is a substantive shift to new extraction
and upgrading technologies.
Many of the ‘easiest’ reserves have already been
exploited and much of the future development will

DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS

“[T]he average GHG [greenhouse gas] intensity for all oil
and gas production and processing activities increased focus on more marginal reserves that are ‘harder’
(more energy intensive) to extract.
by 10% between 1990 and 2008. During this period, the
intensity for conventional (light, medium and heavy) oil The proportion of the overall production from the more
production increased by 24%. Oil sands mining, extraction GHG-intensive in-situ projects is expected to rise in
and upgrading activities were about 1.5 times more GHG- comparison to the less emissions-intensive surface
intensive than conventional oil production in 2008.”3 mining operations.” 6

Total emissions from oil sands mining, extraction and

upgrading went from 16.8 million tonnes in 1990 to
37.2 million tonnes in 2008.4

2
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, “Canada’s Oil Sands: What We’re
doing: Climate Change”, http://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/what-were-doing/green-
house-gas.aspx (accessed October 29, 2010).
3
Environment Canada, National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in
Canada 1990–2008 (April 2010), p. 23. It should also be noted that an increasing propor-
5
tion of bitumen is being exported to the US for upgrading and refining, so that “emissions Environment Canada, Turning the Corner: Detailed Emissions and Economic Modelling
associated with the upgrading and refining of bitumen were increasingly avoided in Canada, (2008), p. 42.
6
which also contributed to reductions in overall oil production intensity” (ibid, pp. 69–70). Natural Resources Canada, “Oil Sands—GHG Emissions”, Issue Paper (December 5,
4
Ibid, p. 86. 2008). Document released under the Access to Information Act.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency Peer-Reviewed Academic Literature
“We estimate that GHG emissions from the Canadian “Thirteen studies of GHG emissions associated with
oil sands crude would be approximately 82 per cent oil sands operations are reviewed. The production
greater than the average crude refined in the U.S. on a of synthetic crude oil (SCO) through surface mining
well-to-tank basis.”7 and upgrading (SM&Up) or in situ and upgrading
(IS&Up) processes is reported to result in emissions
Government-Appointed Task Force on Carbon ranging from 62 to 164 and 99 to 176 kg [kilograms]
Capture and Storage Potential CO2eq/bbl [carbon dioxide equivalent/barrel] SCO,
respectively (or 9.2–26.5 and 16.2–28.7 g [grams]
“The oil sands are the fastest growing sector for
CO2eq MJ [megajoules]−1 SCO, respectively), compared
domestic GHG emissions and so there are real
to 27–58 kg CO2eq/bbl (4.5–9.6 g CO2eq MJ−1) of
opportunities for reductions. However, oil sands
crude for conventional oil production. The difference
operations are very diverse (both geographically and
in emissions intensity between SCO and conventional
technically) and only a small portion of the CO2 [carbon
crude production is primarily due to higher energy
dioxide] streams are currently amenable for CCS
requirements for extracting bitumen and upgrading it
[carbon capture and storage] due to both the size of
into SCO.”9
emissions streams and the concentrations.”8

7
Letter from Cynthia Giles of the US Environmental Protection Agency to Jose
Fernandez and Kerri-Ann Jones of the US State Department (June 16, 2010), on the
Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL pipeline, p. 2, available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.nsf/(PDFView)/20100126/$file/20100126.
PDF?OpenElement.
8 9
The ecoEnergy Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force, Canada’s Fossil Energy Future: Alex Charpentier, Joule Bergerson and Heather MacLean, “Understanding the Cana-
The Way Forward on Carbon Capture and Storage, report to the Minister of Alberta dian oil sands industry’s greenhouse gas emissions.” Environmental Research Letters 4
Energy and the Minister of Natural Resources Canada (January 9, 2008), pp. 8–9. (2009): 014005.

FIGURE 2.
WELL-TO-REFINERY-ENTRANCE’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS PER BARREL OF SYNTHETIC CRUDE
OIL FROM SURFACE MINING AND IN SITU SANDS OPERATIONS VERSUS CONVENTIONAL OIL

200
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS

180

160

140

120
kgCO2eq/bbl SCO or crude

100

80

60

40
Surface Mining &Upgrading

20 In Situ & Upgrading

Conv. Oil
4 0
CAPP
Flint
GHGenius
GREET
McCann in Flint
McCulloch
O-G LCF
0-G DC
O-G LCF+FC
Shell AOSP
Suncor
Syncrude
B&F low
Furimsky DC
Furimsky FC+H

Flint
GHGenius
GREET
McCulloch

McCann in Flint
GHGenius

Source: Alex Charpentier, Joule Bergerson and Heather Maclean, “Understanding the Candadian oil sands industry’s greenhouse
gas emissions.” Environmental Research Letters 4 (2009): 014005
 AIR POLLUTION
THE CLAIM:
“We will not emit any poisonous waste to the air, rivers,
fresh water or soil.”
— Statoil, from its commitment to responsible development in the
oil sands 10
THE REALITY:
In situ oil sands operations are major air polluters.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Natural Resources Canada
“Air pollutant intensities for oil sands are more than double
those for the production of conventional light/medium
crude oil.”11
Environment Canada
Oil companies routinely report 16 different toxic and
smog-causing air emissions from their in situ oil sands
operations to Environment Canada’s National Pollutant
Release Inventory. These emissions would be higher if the
emissions associated with upgrading the resulting bitumen
into synthetic crude oil were included, as most upgrading
takes place off-site.
VOICES FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
Donna Dahm, high school teacher in the Peace
River region, where in situ extraction is expanding
rapidly
“I live in a rural agricultural area in northwestern Alberta
— an area that has recently been the site of massive
expansion of bitumen extraction. Over the past five years,
we have experienced the ‘Alberta advantage’ — we now
have the advantage that comes with 300 trucks a day
wheeling past our home at every hour of the day or night,
the emissions from hundreds of extraction sites and the
added value of the deterioration of our health. These
‘advantages’ that the Alberta government so reverently
refers to in their defense of indiscriminate resource
extraction are clearly the rewards garnered by
10
Statoil, Balancing our Responsibilities: Statoil in Brief 2009/2010, p. 21.
11
Natural Resources Canada, “Oil Sands—Air Pollutant Emissions”, Issue Paper
(December 5, 2008). Document released under the Access to Information Act.
the industry executives in their Calgary office towers
as they amass huge dividends for their shareholders.
There are few advantages in my community when our
local and provincial governments are using my tax
money to provide roads and infrastructure to support
the very activities that are threatening the health of our
community.
“I know, without a doubt that if these continual emissions
were being spewed out daily to the Legislature grounds
in Edmonton or to downtown Calgary office towers,
there would have been a massive and immediate effort to
eliminate the emissions.
“When community members have expressed concern
to our local and provincial governments and regulatory
bodies (ERCB and Alberta Environment) regarding our
serious health concerns related to our exposure to
harmful emissions from this extraction activity we are
repeatedly told that the ‘odours’ have no identifiable
source and there is no reason to be worried about our
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS
health. That ‘risk assessment’ may be acceptable for
the group of policy makers and corporate executives
who don’t live with the emissions day in and day
out and have no exposure to the bitumen extraction
activities. But why is it not only acceptable, but blatantly
supported by our governments and regulators,
to expose others to emissions that clearly have a
deleterious effect on our health. Furthermore, the
regulatory bodies continue their approvals, one project
at a time, with no consideration of the cumulative
effects of compounds in the emissions, or the resulting
detrimental effects of combinations of compounds.
“Why are we repeatedly and consistently experiencing
exhaustion, joint pain, respiratory difficulties and
headaches if there is no risk? It is clear that the well- 5
being of our community is for sale, or more accurately,
to be given away to any industry that wishes to set up
shop to make a buck.”12
12
Personal communication (February 16, 2011).
 TABLE 1

Air Emissions reported by nine in situ oil sands operation to Environment Canada’s National
Pollutant Release Inventory in 2009

Releases to Air
Substance Health and Environmental Impacts
(in tonnes)

Benzene 9.27 Toxic and known human carcinogen (cancer-causing)

Cadmium 29.0 Toxic and known human carcinogen (cancer-causing)
Mercury 6.8 Toxic, causing damage to the nerve system
Hydrogen sulphide 54.1 Toxic, and at high concentrations can asphyxiate animals and people.
Sulphur dioxide 7,151 Causes acid rain and smog
Nitrogen oxides 1,653 Causes acid rain and smog
Principal greenhouse gas (this is the equivalent of the tailpipe emissions of
Carbon dioxide 9,776,526
1.6 million cars)
Source: Data from Environment Canada, National Pollutant Release Inventory database, http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/default.asp?lang=En&n=4A577BB9-1 (accessed Oct. 29, 2010).

250
400

FIGURE 3.
CURRENT OIL SANDS NATURAL GAS DEMAND 250

1000
250 80
400

In Situ
Mining
Upgrader hydrogen today
Added future upgrader hydrogen
250
Upgrader fuel (assumes no coke burning)
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS

standard cubic feet / barrel

all figures are estimates and will vary Source: OSTRM
1000
80 Source: Alberta Chamber of Resources, Oil Sands Technology Roadmap
(January 30, 2004), p. 52.

In Situ
Mining
Upgrader hydrogen today
Added future upgrader hydrogen
Upgrader fuel (assumes no coke burning)
standard cubic feet / barrel
all figures are estimates and will vary Source: OSTRM

6
 WATER CONTAMINATION
THE CLAIM:
“In situ drilling, unlike opencast mining, does not create a
large physical footprint or involve tailings ponds or liquid
residues.”13 — BP website
THE REALITY:
The contaminated water is being pumped into what
are essentially underground tailings ponds. The federal
government’s top scientific advisors on groundwater are
calling for no new approvals for in situ operations, due to
the potential negative impacts on groundwater aquifers.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Council of Canadian Academies (an independent
scientific advisory group that was asked by the
federal government for advice on groundwater
management)
“Since more than four-fifths of the total bitumen reserves
in Alberta are accessible only by in situ methods, the
demand for groundwater for in situ production could be
as great as, or greater than the demand for surface water
for oil sands mining, unless new extraction processes are
adopted… A thorough understanding of the hydraulic
controls on SAGD operations, critical for constraining
the injection and production fluids and preventing
crossformational migration and contamination of
productive aquifers, is absent. The key parameters that
control the extent of leakage, the confining pressures in
the overlying layers, the integrity of the aquitards and the
presence of downward gradients are generally difficult
to measure comprehensively and therefore are not well
characterised. Away from the bitumen, the degree of
hydraulic connectivity to down-cut and often buried
glacial scours and to modern river courses needs to be
better understood before more underground injection
sites are approved.” 14
13
BP website, http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9032750&c
ontentId=7059983. Accessed November 8, 2010.
14
Council of Canadian Academies, The Sustainable Management of Groundwater in
Canada: Report of the Expert Panel on Groundwater (2009), pp. 146–7.
National Roundtable on the Environment and
Economy (advisory body appointed by the federal
government)
“A very important unknown cumulative effect of oil sands
operations may be that of the impact to groundwater
aquifers. The significant groundwater use by in situ operations
could potentially affect drawdown of fresh or shallow saline
aquifers, change groundwater levels, and allow freshwater to
infiltrate voids created by bitumen removal.  The aquifers in
the regions are currently not accurately mapped and so the
potential impact is very uncertain.”15
VOICES FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
Elder Midge Johnson, Beaver Lake Cree First Nation
“We used to be able to stop at a bog and clear away and
drink the water that ran back in. Now the horses won’t drink
the water. It’s gone bad.”16
Flora Gladue, Beaver Lake Cree First Nation
“The fish don’t taste good anymore because of the pollution
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS
from the oil sands. They don’t taste the way they did before.
They used to be pure fish, clean fish. Now, with all the
pollution from oilsands development, they don’t taste the
same. Maybe they eat the pollution or they drink water with
it and after that they just don’t taste good.”17
7
15
National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy, Changing Currents: Water
Sustainability and the Future of Canada’s Natural Resource Sectors (June 2010), p. 92.
16
Personal Communication (June 2008).
17
Personal Communication (July 2009).
 TABLE 2

Water Use by In Situ Oil Sands Facilities:

Design versus Actual
Steam-to- Cumulative
In Situ Oil Sands
Oil Ratio: Steam-to-Oil
Facility
Design Ratio: Actual
Firebag 2.0 3.4
Great Divide 2.7 4.0
Christina Lake 2.7 2.3
Long Lake 3.3 6.5

WATER USE
Surmont 2.5 3.5
Foster Creek 2.5 2.5
Joslyn 3.0 4.3
MacKay River 3.3 2.5

THE CLAIM: Tucker Lake 3.0 13.8

In situ projects will minimize their use of water and will
use non-potable water, e.g.: “Water, while plentiful in
Northern Alberta, is a finite resource. We designed
Phase 1 to recycle more than 90% of the water and
to use non-potable groundwater.”
— Opti-Nexen, referring to its Long Lake in situ operation18
THE REALITY:
The cumulative impact of water use by in situ operation
is of concern to scientific advisors, and most in situ
operations are using far more water than projected in the
environmental impact assessments used to get approval
for the project.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Council of Canadian Academies (an independent
scientific advisory group that was asked by the
federal government for advice on groundwater
management)
Average of 9 facilities 2.8 4.8
Source: Data from RPS Energy, JOGMEC SAGD Performance Study
Final Presentation, Tokyo, September 29, 2009.
In the Opti-Nexen Long Lake operation, for example, the
excess water demand has led the company to make an
application to use 17,000 cubic metres per day from the
Clearwater River (equivalent to the amount of water used
by 50,000 households), in spite of committing to using
only non-potable water when it submitted its application
for the project.20
Natural Resources Canada
“Alternatives to water-based extraction processes could
reduce water dependency for next generation oil sands
plants; however, these replace water issues with significant
air emissions, either from solvents which might be used or
with sulphur dioxide from thermal processes.”21

“Although 90 to 95 per cent of the water used for steam

VOICES FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
[for in situ oil sands production] is reused, 1 m3 [cubic
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS

meter] of bitumen produced still requires about 0.2 m3 of
additional groundwater (NEB, 2008). Eventually, most of
the groundwater used for steam injection or processing
ends up either being deep-well injected or stored in tailings
ponds. This groundwater is considered lost as a resource
for consumptive use...
“Since more than four-fifths of the total bitumen reserves
in Alberta are accessible only by in situ methods, the
demand for groundwater for in situ production could be
as great as, or greater than the demand for surface water
for oil sands mining, unless new extraction processes
are adopted... Knowledge is lacking as to whether the
aquifers in the Athabasca oil sands region can sustain
these groundwater demands and losses.”�19
8
Industry Consultants
Research by the industry shows that actual water use is
much higher than was predicted in the projects’ design, as
put forward in environmental impact statements (see Table 2).
18
Opti-Nexen, “Responsible Development,” http://www.nexeninc.com/en/Operations/
OilSands/LongLake/ResponsibleDevelopment.aspx. Accessed November 8, 2010.
19
Council of Canadian Academies, The Sustainable Management of Groundwater in
Canada: Report of the Expert Panel on Groundwater (2009), pp. 144 and 210.
Cleo Reece, co-chair of Keepers of the Athabasca,
and member of the Fort McMurray First Nation
“Nexen’s claims are misleading. They say one thing and do
another. They got approvals from the Energy and Resources
Conservation Board on the condition of explicitly not using
surface water and here we are a few years later and they
are looking for 17,000 cubic metres per day from a heritage
river. Alberta Environment needs to turn down the application
because Nexen is telling one story to get its initial approval and
a different one to allow it to get out of its original promises.
We need to protect and preserve the water, the sacred gift
we have been given, not only as a treaty right but as our
responsibility for the future of the generations yet unborn.” 22 
Ruth Kleinbub, Clearwater Heritage River Society
“We’re constantly told how environmentally friendly SAGD
or in-situ is. I’m really questioning that at this point... I think
it’s time the government sort of says ‘OK. Enough is enough.’
We’re hoping desperately that they do.”23 
20
Dan Healing, “Oilsands Plan Angers Environmentalists”, The Star Phoenix (April 9, 2010).
21
Natural Resources Canada, “Oil Sands—Water Use and Management”, Issue Paper (De-
cember 5, 2008). Document released under the Access to Information Act.
22
Personal communication (February 15, 2011).
23
Cited in Carol Christian, “Environmentalists dispute water withdrawal from Clearwater River”,
Fort McMurray Today (July 28, 2010).
 LANDSCAPE AND
HABITAT DISTURBANCE
THE CLAIM:
“The SAGD (Steam assisted gravity drainage) technique
has a far less impact on the landscape than conventional
mining operations”24 and “92 per cent of the area will
remain undisturbed throughout the operation period.”25
— Statoil
THE REALITY:
In situ tar sands operations cover a much larger area
than mining operations, and fragment ecosystems in a
way that is less obvious but is still deeply disruptive to
wildlife habitat.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Peer-Reviewed Academic Literature
“Despite the fact that less land is directly disturbed for in
situ projects, we have shown that in situ developments can
influence a magnitude of habitat that is larger than surface
mining when edge effects and natural gas production are
considered in the analysis.”26
Athabasca Landscape Team (a multi-stakeholder
committee with representation from industry,
academics and government, that was created to
provide advice to the Alberta government)
“Boreal caribou will not persist for more than two to four
decades without immediate and aggressive management
intervention. Tough choices need to be made between
the management imperative to recover boreal caribou
and plans for ongoing bitumen development and
industrial land-use.... Land-use footprint, associated with
oil sands (bitumen) extraction and forest harvest, is likely to
increase throughout the Athabasca Landscape area over
the next 50+ years. The highest risk to caribou occurs in
areas that are underlain with thick bitumen deposits.”27
(Emphasis in the original.)
24
Statoil, website, http://www.statoil.com/en/EnvironmentSociety/RelevantTopics/OilSand-
InCanada/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed October 29, 2010.
25
Statoil, Balancing Our Responsibilities: Statoil in Brief 2009/2010, p. 21.
26
Sarah Jordaan, David Keith and Brad Stelfox, “Quantifying land use of oil sands produc-
tion: A life cycle perspective,” Environmental Research Letters 4 (2009).
27
Athabasca Landscape Team, Athabasca Caribou Management Options Report, report
prepared for Alberta Caribou Commission (June 2008), pp. i–ii.
VOICES FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
Elder Floyd Cardinal, Beaver Lake Cree First
Nation
“It seems like the deer are moving north because of
the alfalfa they plant along the new roads and pipeline
routes. They carry disease with them that comes from
the south. All the projects around Christina Lake are
messing up things for the caribou.”28
Elder Rene (Rainy) Cardinal, Beaver Lake Cree
First Nation
“Today there are no elk or moose left. The only animal
left is deer. Even if the animals come back they are
killed if they run on all the roads. These people that
are digging up our forest, the oil and gas exploration
crews, have frightened off all the animals. They have
had to find other places to move to. Very rarely can
you track animals here. The only place you see deer
are farmers’ fields.”29
BLCN Elder Christine Twin, Beaver Lake Cree
First Nation
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS
“Lots of places where we used to go hunting or to pick
medicine, we cannot go there anymore because they
have put up gates for oil and gas wells. The moose,
the ducks and the fish are diseased. When you
open them up there are cancers in them or worms.
The pollution falls on our medicines and the animals’
medicines and they get eaten and make them sick.
Now we have to worry if berries or medicines are safe.
The logging is a real problem. There are all these huge
cutblocks and lines and the animals have no place
to go. They cut right up to the shorelines of the lakes
where the animal crossings are, so the animals have to
be exposed to cross.”30
9
28
Personal Communication (June 2008). 
29
Personal Communication (February 14, 2011).
30
Personal Communication (July, 2009).
10
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS
 FIRST NATIONS’
TREATY RIGHTS
THE CLAIM:
“Our industry respects and understands the unique
interests and constitutional rights of Aboriginal
communities. We support the development of strong
business relationships and partnerships based on trust
and respect.”
— Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 31
THE REALITY:
First Nations have launched lawsuits that identify
thousands of violations of their treaty rights and
are calling for a halt to the expansion of tar sands
operations.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
The Beaver Lake Cree Nation’s ancestors signed Treaty
6 in 1876, and were guaranteed the right to hunt and
fish for all time in their traditional use lands.The tar sands
projects are illegal and unconstitutional because they
violate the treaty — by destroying the very habitat upon
which the animals and fish depend.
The legal action that was launched in 2008 (and is
being led by the Victoria-based law firm Woodward and
Company LLP), is based on the 1982 Constitution and
recent Canadian court cases, which establish that the
meaningful exercise of treaty rights requires protection
of sufficient natural habitat for the animals and fish to
thrive. Habitat is what must be preserved under the
law — the habitat that is being destroyed by the heavy
oil industry. These constitutional rights are the strongest
environmental laws in Canada and possibly the world.
31
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Today, Tomorrow: 2009 CAPP
Stewardship Report, p. 3.
The legal challenge has identified over 20,000 violations of
the Beaver Lake Cree Nation’s treaty rights. These include:
(i) failing to ensure minimal impairment of the Treaty
Rights;
(ii) leaving the Plaintiffs with no meaningful way to
exercise the Treaty Rights;
(iii) reducing the abundance and diversity of Wildlife
species available to the Plaintiffs;
(iv) compromising the ecological, cultural and/or
spiritual integrity of the Core Traditional Territory;
and
(v) reducing the available Wildlife habitat of the Core
Traditional Territory.32
In 2010, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the
Enoch Cree First Nation joined the Beaver Lake Cree
Nation in a separate legal action calling for emergency
protections for caribou herds in northern Alberta and a halt
to industrial development in the caribou’s critical habitat.33
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS
VOICES FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
Jack Woodward, lawyer for the Beaver Lake Cree
“The law is clearly on the side of First Nations. The
greatest barrier to justice and victory in this case is the
high cost of the legal system. Canada and Alberta do
not want to lose this case. But the courageous fight
of the Beaver Lake Cree to protect their hunting and
fishing grounds is also the world’s fight — to prevent
the expansion of the climate-destroying tar sands
developments in Alberta. The legal action of the Beaver
Lake Cree is supported by those who see the massive
destruction of the landscape as an environmental crime,
and those who fear that the carbon released by the heavy
11
oil projects may take the planet past the tipping point.”34
32
See the Statement of Claim at http://www.beaverlakecreenation.ca/upload/docu-
ments/statementofclaim.pdf.
33
See http://www.woodwardandcompany.com/media/pdfs/Caribou_JR_-_Filed_No-
tice_of_Application_-_colour.pdf.
34
Personal communication (February 9, 2011).
 DOES THE WORLD NEED OIL
FROM THE TAR SANDS?
THE CLAIM:
“The International Energy Agency has indicated that, even
if GHG emissions are tightly constrained, fossil fuels will
still be the dominant source of energy in 2030 and that
the world will require a wide range of hydrocarbons within
a balanced and sustainable energy mix… Oil sands also
represent a significant and stable source of oil supply
to enhance energy security and diversity, particularly for
North America.”
— BP, in response to the question “Does the world need oil from
the oil sands?”35
THE REALITY:
The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Reference Scenario
that is being used by BP, Shell and others as justification
for expanding tar sands operations was put forward as
what the IEA Executive Director labelled a “caution.”36 It
is a business-as-usual scenario, in which the Canadian
tar sands triple their output, and it puts the world on the
path to what the IEA called “massive climatic change and
irreparable damage to the planet.” 37
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS
RESEARCH FINDINGS
The IEA’s 2009 World Energy Outlook was actually
advocating for governments to pursue policies that would
lead to a “low-carbon energy revolution.” In this scenario,
the global growth of unconventional oil would fall
dramatically, “with Canadian oil sands particularly heavily
affected.”38
As the high-cost supplier, tar sands production is
particularly sensitive to changes in the global demand for
oil, which is why Canadian tar sands projects accounted
for over 85 per cent of all of the upstream oil and gas
projects in the world that were cancelled or pushed back
12
by at least 18 months globally in response to the 2008
economic recession.39
35
BP, Sustainability Review 2009:Operating at the Energy Frontiers: How a Revital-
ized BP Is Driving Efficiency, Momentum and Growth, p. 14.
36
Cited in November 10, 2009 IEA press release, available at http://www.iea.org/
press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=294.
37
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2009, p. 44.
38
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2009, p. 216. The IEA also noted that its low-carbon scenario
would also dramatically cut air pollution and reduce fuel costs in the transport sector by
$6.2 trillion over the 2010–2030 period, helping to pay for the cost of making the change.
39
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2009, Table 3.2 on p. 142.
The IEA’s 2010 World Energy Outlook presented (for
the first time) a scenario in which the global demand
for oil drops over the next 25 years, with the result that
for the Canadian tar sands, “projects currently under
construction or being planned would suffice to match
supply to demand.”40
The IEA also noted, however, that this scenario only
offers a 50 per cent or lower probability of keeping
global warming below 2 degrees (as agreed to by
Canada and other countries under the Copenhagen
Accord).41
This is why Greenpeace and the European Renewable
Energy Council (EREC) have put forward a more
aggressive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in their Energy [R]evolution blueprint,42 as
have other groups, such as WWF.43 Even the US
military is beginning to prepare for a world that has
gone beyond oil.�
The Energy [R]evolution scenarios tap into the large
potential for improving the efficiency of the transport
sector by shifting freight from road to rail, expanding
public transit, and by using much lighter, smaller and
more efficient passenger vehicles.
The other major factor reducing the demand for oil will
be a switch to electric drive-trains for vehicles. In the
Advanced Energy [R]evolution Scenario, the final energy
share of electric vehicles on the road increases to
4 per cent by 2020, 19 per cent by 2030 and to over
50 per cent by 2050.  Public transport systems will
also increasingly use electricity to power their vehicles.
40
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2010, p. 147.
41
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2010, p. 389.
42
Sven Teske, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, 3rd edition
(2010), (Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council [EREC], June
2010).
43
Stephan Singer et al., The Energy Report: 100% Renewable Energy by 2050, report
prepared for WWF, Ecofys and OMA (2011).
TABLE 3: IEA AND GREENPEACE/EREC SCENARIOS FOR OIL DEMAND IN 2035
IEA Scenarios for 2035
2009
Current
Policies
Global oil demand
84 107.4
(millions of barrels/day)
Canadian oil sands
production (millions of 1.3 4.6
barrels/day)
Source: Data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2010, and Greenpeace/ European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable
World Energy Outlook (2010).
This reduces greenhouse gas emissions because the
electricity sector will be the pioneer of renewable energy
utilisation. By 2030, 60 per cent of electricity will be
produced from renewable sources, the portion rising to
95 per cent by 2050. A significant share of the fluctuating
power generation from wind and solar photovoltaic will be
used to supply electricity to vehicle batteries and produce
hydrogen as a secondary fuel in transport and industry.
When combined, these factors eliminate any global need
for oil from the tar sands.
VOICES FROM AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
Randall Benson, CEO, Off the Grid Renewable
Energy Power Systems, Inc.
“Before I worked for a certain open-pit mine company,
I worked for a company which utilized SAGD [in situ]
technology. This particular company, solely because
of SAGD technology, purported to have a smaller, less
impactful environmental footprint then traditional open
pit mining.
“I fell for this hook line and sinker… until such time that I
became more familiar with the process and technology as
an employee. I soon realized that it was as, if not more,
energy intensive than open-pit mining, and the huge
amounts of water needed to generate the steam required
was never going to be recoverable or potable. Instead of
creating massive surface tailings ponds they injected the
used, toxic water down into the aquifer. This did not sit
well with me.
Greenpeace /
EREC Scenarios for 2035
New 450 Energy [R]evolution Energy [R]evolution
Policies Scenario (basic scenario) (advanced scenario)
99 81 59 51
No need for new oil sands projects and the
4.2 3.3 phase-out of existing projects is completed
or underway
“Perhaps it’s true that the amount of land cleared and
used is somewhat less than open mining but it is not
any less impactful for the animals, fish and traditional
hunting and trapping families who depend on the land. I
know this because my family has been and continues to
be directly affected by in situ development.
“Between my experiences as an employee, with in situ
and open-pit mining, dissent grew within me. I decided
to side with the values that were instilled and impressed
upon me my entire life by family and local elders, and
find something that I could do that would not transgress
these values. For the last 10 years (14 if you count
school and self-study) I have owned and operated a
DEEP TROUBLE _THE REALITY OF IN SITU TAR SANDS OPERATIONS
very successful renewable energy company specializing
in solar power, wind power and now solar hot water
systems. I am much happier!”44
James Hansen, NASA climate scientist
“It is still feasible to stabilize the climate, but only if
we leave the tar sands in the ground. The massive
greenhouse gas amounts from the tar sands surely
would cause the climate system to pass tipping points,
while also trampling on the human rights of Canada’s
First Nation communities and greatly damaging the
Canadian boreal forest... The world has reached a
critical juncture in the climate debate. We can either
move into the production of the most damaging
13
fossil fuel, or we can begin to address our destructive
addiction.” 45
44
Personal communication (February 7, 2011).
45
James Hansen, “Open Letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg,”
published in the Norwegian paper Aftenposten, May 19, 2010.
 Printed on 100 per cent post-consumer recycled, chlorine-free paper.

greenpeace.ca

Greenpeace Canada
33 Cecil Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1N1
454, avenue Laurier Est, 3e étage, Montréal (Québec) H2J 1E7
1726 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5N 4A3
6328 - 104 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6H 2K9
1 800 320-7183