Connect with us

Canadian Energy Centre

Canadian energy producers among worlds’ best at limiting gas flaring

Published

11 minute read

The Nahr Bin Omar oil field and facility near Iraq’s southern port city of Basra on February 11, 2022. In the oilfields of southern Iraq, billions of cubic feet of gas literally go up in smoke, burnt off on flare stacks for want of the infrastructure to capture and process it. (Photo by HUSSEIN FALEH/AFP via Getty Images)

From the Canadian Energy Centre

International comparisons of gas flaring among top oil producers

Canada contributed just 0.7% of the global amount of gas flaring despite being the world’s fourth-largest oil producer

ByĀ Ven VenkatachalamĀ andĀ Lennie Kaplan

This Fact Sheet analyzes the upstream oil industry’s record on flaring in Canada relative to other top oil-producing countries. Gas flaring is the burning off of the natural gas that is generated in the process of oil extraction and production. Flaring is relevant because it is a source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) (see Appendix).

In 2022, 138,549 million cubic meters (m3) (or 139 billion cubic meters (bcm)) of flared gases were emitted worldwide, creating 350 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. Canada is a significant oil producer; it has theĀ third-largestĀ proven crude oil reserves and is the fourthlargest crude oil producer in the world (Natural Resources Canada, undated), and so contributes to flaring.

Flaring comparisons

This Fact Sheet uses World Bank data to provide international comparisons of flaring. It also draws on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) crude oil production data to compare flaring among the top 10 crude oil producing countries.

Table 1 shows gas flaring volumes in 2012 and 2022. In absolute terms, Russia recorded more flaring than any other country at 25,495 million m3 (25.4 bcm) in 2022, which was 1,628 million m3 (7 per cent) higher than in 2012.

The four countries that are the top GHG emitters through flaring (Russia, Iraq, Iran, and Algeria) accounted for 50 per cent of global gas flaring in 2022.

At 945 million m3, Canada was the eighth lowest flarer in 2022 (23rd spot out of the top 30 countries). It decreased its flaring emissions by 320 million m3 from the 2012 level of 1,264 million m3, a 25 per cent drop.

In 2022, Canada contributed just 0.7 per cent of the global amount of gas flaring despite being the world’s fourth largest oil producer (see Table 1).

Sources: World Bank (undated)

Flaring declined worldwide between 2012 and 2022

Figure 1 shows the change in flaring volumes between 2012 and 2022. Nine countries flared more in 2022 than in 2012, while 21 countries flared less. In the last decade, the global flaring volume decreased by 3 per cent.

  • The three countries that most significantly increased flaring between 2012 and 2022 were the Republic of the Congo (65 per cent), Iran (56 per cent), and Iraq (41 per cent).
  • The three countries that most significantly decreased flaring between 2012 and 2022 were Uzbekistan (-76 per cent), Columbia (-75 per cent) and Kazakhstan (-74 per cent).
  • As noted earlier, flaring fell by 25 per cent in Canada between 2012 and 2022.
Sources: World Bank (undated)

Comparing flaring to increased production

The decreases in flaring in Canada between 2012 and 2022 shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 understate the magnitude of the decline in flaring in the country. That is because Canada’s crude oil production increased by 45 per cent in that period, even as absolute flaring decreased by 25 per cent (see Table 2).

Canada compares very favourably with the United States, which increased crude oil production by 82 per cent and decreased flaring by 16 per cent.

Sources: World Bank (undated) and EIA (2023)

Largest oil producers and flaring intensity

To fully grasp how much more effective Canada has been than many other oil producers in reducing flaring, Table 3 compares both flaring intensity (gas flared per unit of oil production) and crude oil production among the top 10 oil producing countries (which account for 73 per cent of the world oil production).

Canada is the fourth-largest producer of crude oil, and its gas flaring intensity declined by 48 per cenft between 2012 and 2022. Four of the top 10 oil producers witnessed their flaring intensity increase between 2012 and 2022.

Sources: World Bank (undated) and EIA (2023)

Conclusion

Gas flaring contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is possible for countries to both increase their oil production and still reduce flaring. Canada is one noteworthy example of a country that has significantly reduced flaring not only compared to its increased production of crude oil, but also in absolute terms.


Appendix

Background

Flaring and venting are two ways in which an oil or natural gas producer can dispose of waste gases. Venting is the intentional controlled release of uncombusted gases directly to the atmosphere, and flaring is combusting natural gas or gas derived from petroleum in order to dispose of it.¹ As Matthew R. Johnson and Adam R. Coderre noted in their 2012 paper on the subject, flaring in the petroleum industry generally falls within three broad categories:

  • Emergency flaringĀ (large, unplanned, and very short-duration releases, typically at larger downstream facilities or off-shore platforms);
  • Process flaringĀ (intermittent large or small releases that may last for a few hours or a few days as occurs in the upstream industry during well-test flaring to assess the size of a reservoir or at a downstream plant during a planned process blowdown); and
  • Production flaringĀ (may occur continuously for years while oil is being produced).

To track GHGs from flaring and venting, Environment Canada (2016)Ā definesĀ such emissions as:

  • Fugitive emissions:Ā Unintentional releases from venting, flaring, or leakage of gases from fossil fuel production and processing, iron and steel coke oven batteries, or CO2 capture, transport, injection, and storage infrastructure.
  • Flaring emissions:Ā Controlled releases of gases from industrial activities from the combustion of a gas or liquid stream produced at a facility, the purpose of which is not to produce useful heat or work. This includes releases from waste petroleum incineration, hazardous emission prevention systems, well testing, natural gas gathering systems, natural gas processing plant operations, crude oil production, pipeline operations, petroleum refining, chemical fertilizer production, and steel production.
  • Venting emissions:Ā Controlled releases of a process or waste gas, including releases of CO2 associated with carbon capture, transport, injection, and storage; from hydrogen production associated with fossil fuel production and processing; of casing gas; of gases associated with a liquid or a solution gas; of treater, stabilizer, or dehydrator off-gas; of blanket gases; from pneumatic devices that use natural gas as a driver; from compressor start-ups, pipelines, and other blowdowns; and from metering and regulation station control loops.

1. Many provinces regulate flaring and venting including Alberta (Directive 060) British Columbia (Flaring and Venting Reduction Guideline), and Saskatchewan (S-10 and S-20). Newfoundland & Labrador also has regulations that govern offshore flaring.

Notes

This CEC Fact Sheet was compiled by Ven Venkatachalam and Lennie Kaplan at the Canadian Energy Centre:Ā www.canadianenergycentre.ca. All percentages in this report are calculated from the original data, which can run to multiple decimal points. They are not calculated using the rounded figures that may appear in charts and in the text, which are more reader friendly. Thus, calculations made from the rounded figures (and not the more precise source data) will differ from the more statistically precise percentages we arrive at using source data. The authors and the Canadian Energy Centre would like to thank and acknowledge the assistance of an anonymous reviewer in reviewing the data and research for this Fact Sheet.

ReferencesĀ (All links live as of September 23, 2023)

Alberta Energy Regulator (2022), Directive 060: Upstream Petroleum Industry Faring, Incinerating, and Venting <https://bit.ly/3AMYett>; BC Oil and Gas Commission (2021), Flaring and Venting Reduction Guideline, version 5.2 <https://bit.ly/3CWRa0i>; Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (2007), Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador Gas Flaring Reduction <https://bit.ly/3RhKpKu>; D&I Services (2010), Saskatchewan Energy and Resources: S-10 and S-20 <https://bit.ly/3TBrVGJ>; Johnson, Matthew R., and Adam R. Coderre (2012), Compositions and Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors of Flared and Vented Gas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 62, 9: 992-1002 <https://bit.ly/3cJRqPd>; Environment Canada (2016), Technical Guidance on Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Facility Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program <https://bit.ly/3CVQR5C>; Natural Resources Canada (Undated), Oil Resources <https://bit.ly/3oWWhW0>; U.S. Energy Information Administration (undated), Petroleum and Other Liquids <https://bit.ly/2Ad6S9i>; World Bank (Undated), Global Gas Flaring Data <https://bit.ly/3zXuxGX>.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

ByĀ Deborah Jaremko

ā€œWe’re focusing on the opportunity that Canada has, perhaps even the obligationā€

It was not a call he wanted to make.

In October 2017, Kevin O’Donnell, then chief financial officer of Nisku, Alta.-based Banister Pipelines, got final word that the $16-billion Energy East pipeline was cancelled.

It was his job to pass the news down the line to reach workers who were already in the field.

ā€œWe had a crew that was working along the current TC Energy line that was ready for conversion up in Thunder Bay,ā€ said O’Donnell, who is now executive director of the Mississauga, Ont.-based Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada (PLCAC).

ā€œI took the call, and they said abandon right now. Button up and abandon right now.

ā€œIt was truly surreal. It’s tough to tell your foreman, who then tells their lead hands and then you inform the unions that those three or four or five million man-hours that you expected are not going to come to fruition,ā€ he said.

Workers guide a piece of pipe along the Trans Mountain expansion route. Photograph courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

ā€œThey’ve got to find lesser-paying jobs where they’re not honing their craft in the pipeline sector. You’re not making the money; you’re not getting the health and dental coverage that you were getting before.ā€

O’Donnell estimates that PLCAC represents about 500,000 workers across Canada through the unions it works with.

With the recent completion of the Trans Mountain expansion and Coastal GasLink pipelines – and no big projects like them coming on the books – many are once again out of a job, he said.

It’s frustrating given that this could be what he called a ā€œgolden ageā€ for building major energy infrastructure in Canada.

Together, more than 62,000 people were hired to build the Trans Mountain expansion and Coastal GasLink projects, according to company reports.

O’Donnell is particularly interested in a project like Energy East, which would link oil produced in Alberta to consumers in Eastern and Atlantic Canada, then international markets in the offshore beyond.

ā€œI think Energy East or something similar has to happen for millions of reasons,ā€ he said.

ā€œThe world’s demanding it. We’ve got the craft [workers], we’ve got the iron ore and we’ve got the steel. We’re talking about a nation where the workers in every province could benefit. They’re ready to build it.ā€

The ā€œGolden Weldā€ marked mechanical completion of construction of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project on April 11, 2024. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

That eagerness is shared by the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA), which represents about 170 construction and maintenance employers across the country.

The PCA’s newly launched ā€œLet’s Get Buildingā€ advocacy campaign urges all parties in the Canadian federal election run to focus on getting major projects built.

ā€œWe’re focusing on the opportunity that Canada has, perhaps even the obligation,ā€ said PCA chief executive Paul de Jong.

ā€œMost of the companies are quite busy irrespective of the pipeline issue right now. But looking at the long term, there’s predictability and long-term strategy that they see missing.ā€

Top of mind is Ottawa’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA), he said, the federal law that assesses major national projects like pipelines and highways.

In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the IAA broke the rules of the Canadian constitution.

Construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Photograph courtesy Coastal GasLink

The court found unconstitutional components including federal overreach into the decision of whether a project requires an impact assessment and whether a project gets final approval to proceed.

Ottawa amended the act in the spring of 2024, but Alberta’s government found the changes didn’t fix the issues and in November launched a new legal challenge against it.

ā€œWe’d like to see the next federal administration substantially revisit the Impact Assessment Act,ā€ de Jong said.

ā€œThe sooner these nation-building projects get underway, the sooner Canadians reap the rewards through new trading partnerships, good jobs and a more stable economy.ā€

Continue Reading

Canadian Energy Centre

First Nations in Manitoba pushing for LNG exports from Hudson’s Bay

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

NeeStaNan project would use port location selected by Canadian government more than 100 years ago

Building a port on Hudson’s Bay to ship natural resources harvested across Western Canada to the world has been a long-held dream of Canadian politicians, starting with Sir Wilfred Laurier.

Since 1931, a small deepwater port has operated at Churchill, Manitoba, primarily shipping grain but more recently expanding handling ofĀ critical mineralsĀ andĀ fertilizers.

A group of 11 First Nations in Manitoba plans to buildĀ an additional industrial terminalĀ nearby at Port Nelson to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe and potash to Brazil.

Courtesy NeeStaNan

Robyn Lore, a director with project backer NeeStaNan, which is Cree for ā€œall of us,ā€ said it makes more sense to ship Canadian LNG to Europe from an Arctic port than it does to send Canadian natural gas all the way to the U.S. Gulf Coast to be exported as LNG to the same place – which is happening today.

ā€œThere is absolutely a business case for sending our LNG directly to European markets rather than sending our natural gas down to the Gulf Coast and having them liquefy it and ship it over,ā€ Lore said. ā€œIt’s in Canada’s interest to do this.ā€

Over 100 years ago, the Port Nelson location at the south end of Hudson’s Bay on the Nelson River was the first to be considered for a Canadian Arctic port.

In 1912, a Port Nelson project was selected to proceed rather than a port at Churchill, about 280 kilometres north.

The Port Nelson site was earmarked by federal government engineers as the most cost-effective location for a terminal to ship Canadian resources overseas.

Construction started but was marred by building challenges due to violent winter storms that beached supply ships and badly damaged the dredge used to deepen the waters around the port.

By 1918, the project was abandoned.

In the 1920s, Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King chose Churchill as the new location for a port on Hudson’s Bay, where it was built and continues to operate today between late July and early November when it is not iced in.

Lore sees using modern technology at Port Nelson including dredging or extending a floating wharf to overcome the challenges that stopped the project from proceeding more than a century ago.

Port Nelson, Manitoba in 1918. Photo courtesy NeeStaNan

He said natural gas could travel to the terminal through a 1,000-kilometre spur line off TC Energy’s Canadian Mainline by using Manitoba Hydro’s existing right of way.

A second option proposes shipping natural gas through Pembina Pipeline’s Alliance system to Regina, where it could be liquefied and shipped by rail to Port Nelson.

The original rail bed to Port Nelson still exists, and about 150 kilometers of track would have to be laid to reach the proposed site, Lore said.

ā€œOur vision is for a rail line that can handle 150-car trains with loads of 120 tonnes per car running at 80 kilometers per hour. That’s doable on the line from Amery to Port Nelson. It makes the economics work for shippers,ā€ said Lore.

Port Nelson could be used around the year because saltwater ice is easier to break through using modern icebreakers than freshwater ice that impacts Churchill between November and May.

Lore, however, is quick to quell the notion NeeStaNan is competing against the existing port.

ā€œWe want our project to proceed on its merits and collaborate with other ports for greater efficiency,ā€ he said.

ā€œIt makes sense for Manitoba, and it makes sense for Canada, even more than it did for Laurier more than 100 years ago.ā€

Continue Reading

Trending

X