Canadian Energy Centre
Canadian energy producers among worlds’ best at limiting gas flaring

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 industryās 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 worldās 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 Canadaās 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.Ā¹ As Matthew R. Johnson and Adam R. Coderre noted in theirĀ 2012 paperĀ 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>.
Canadian Energy Centre
Saskatchewan Indigenous leaders urging need for access to natural gas

Piapot First Nation near Regina, Saskatchewan. Photo courtesy Piapot First Nation/Facebook
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Cody Ciona and Deborah Jaremko
āCome to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.ā
Indigenous communities across Canada need access to natural gas to reduce energy poverty, says aĀ new reportĀ by Energy for a Secure Future (ESF).
Itās a serious issue that needs to be addressed, say Indigenous community and business leaders in Saskatchewan.
āWeāre here today to implore upon the federal government that we need the installation of natural gas and access to natural gas so that we can have safe and reliable service,ā said Guy Lonechild, CEO of the Regina-based First Nations Power Authority, on a March 11Ā ESF webinar.
Last year, 20 Saskatchewan communities moved aĀ resolutionĀ at the Assembly of First Nationsā annual general assembly calling on the federal government to āimmediately enhanceā First Nations financial supports for āmore desirable energy security measures such as natural gas for home heating.ā
āWeāve been calling it heat poverty because thatās what it really isā¦our families are finding that they have to either choose between buying groceries or heating their home,ā Chief Christine Longjohn of Sturgeon Lake First Nation said in the ESF report.
āWe should be able to live comfortably within our homes. We want to be just like every other homeowner that has that choice to be able to use natural gas.ā
At least 333 First Nations communities across Canada are not connected to natural gas utilities,Ā according toĀ the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).
ESF says that while there are many federal programs that help cover the upfront costs of accessing electricity, primarily from renewable sources, there are no comparable ones to support natural gas access.
āMost Canadian and Indigenous communities support actions to address climate change. However, the policy priority of reducing fossil fuel use has had unintended consequences,ā the ESF report said.
āRecent funding support has been directed not at improving reliability or affordability of the energy, but rather at sustainability.ā
Natural gas costs less than half ā or even a quarter ā of electricity prices in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan,Ā according toĀ CER data.
āNatural gas is something NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] will not fund. Itās not considered a renewable for them,ā said Chief Mark Fox of the Piapot First Nation, located about 50 kilometres northeast of Regina.
āCome to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.ā
According to ESF, some Indigenous communities compare the challenge of natural gas access to the multiyear effort to raise awareness and, ultimately funding, to address poor water quality and access on reserve.
āNatural gas is the new water,ā Lonechild said.
Alberta
The beauty of economic corridors: Inside Albertaās work to link products with new markets

From the Canadian Energy Centre
Q&A with Devin Dreeshen, Minister of Transport and Economic Corridors
CEC: How have recent developments impacted Albertaās ability to expand trade routes and access new markets for energy and natural resources?
Dreeshen:Ā With the U.S. trade dispute going on right now, itās great to see that other provinces and the federal government are taking an interest in our east, west and northern trade routes, something that we in Alberta have been advocating for a long time.
We signed agreements with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to have an economic corridor to stretch across the prairies, as well as a recent agreement with the Northwest Territories to go north. With the leadership of Premier Danielle Smith, sheās been working on a BC, prairie and three northern territories economic corridor agreement with pretty much the entire western and northern block of Canada.
There has been a tremendous amount of work trying to get Alberta products to market and to make sure we can build big projects in Canada again.
CEC: Which infrastructure projects, whether pipeline, rail or port expansions, do you see as the most viable for improving Albertaās global market access?
Dreeshen:Ā We look at everything. Obviously, pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas, but also rail is part of the mix of getting over four million barrels per day to markets around the world.
The beauty of economic corridors is that itās a swath of land that can have any type of utility in it, whether it be a roadway, railway, pipeline or a utility line. When you have all the environmental permits that are approved in a timely manner, and you have that designated swath of land, it politically de-risks any type of project.
CEC: A key focus of your ministry has been expanding trade corridors, including an agreement with Saskatchewan and Manitoba to explore access to Hudsonās Bay. Is there any interest from industry in developing this corridor further?
Dreeshen:Ā Thereās been lots of talk [about] Hudson Bay, a trade corridor with rail and port access. Weāve seen some improvements to go to Churchill, but also an interest in the Nelson River.
Weāre starting to see more confidence in the private sector and industry wanting to build these projects. Itās great that governments can get together and work on a common goal to build things here in Canada.
CEC: What is your vision for Albertaās future as a leader in global trade, and how do economic corridors fit into that strategy?
Dreeshen:Ā Premier Smith has talked about C-69 being repealed by the federal government [and] the reversal of the West Coast tanker ban, which targets Alberta energy going west out of the Pacific.
Thereās a lot of work that needs to be done on the federal side. Alberta has been doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to economic corridors.
Weāve asked the federal government if they could develop an economic corridor agency. We want to make sure that the federal government can come to the table, work with provinces [and] work with First Nations across this country to make sure that we can see these projects being built again here in Canada.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of āseditionā
-
Business2 days ago
Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax
-
Automotive2 days ago
Electric cars just another poor climate policy
-
International2 days ago
Trumpās āGolden Domeā defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns
-
Alberta1 day ago
Owner sells gas for 80 cents per litre to show Albertans how low prices ‘could’ be
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberalās Bill C-69 ā The āNo Pipelinesā Bill
-
Break The Needle1 day ago
Why psychedelic therapy is stuck in the waiting room
-
Energy2 days ago
Why are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?