Canadian Energy Centre
Indigenous leaders meet G7 diplomats to make case for Canadian LNG
Indigenous leaders meet with U.S. ambassador to Canada David Cohen. Photo courtesy Energy for a Secure Future
From Shawn Logan of the Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.
‘Every official had a real desire to really understand Indigenous sentiment around resource development’
As G7 leaders left Hiroshima, Japan last month, they made a significant admission that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a critical fuel to help reduce dependence on Russian energy, and that increased natural gas investment is important.
“In this context, we stress the important role that increased deliveries of LNG can play and acknowledge that investment in the sector can be appropriate in response to the current crisis and to address potential gas market shortfalls provoked by the crisis,” wrote the G7 in their final communique last week.
The decision comes just weeks after a small group of Indigenous leaders went to Ottawa to meet face-to-face with diplomats from some of the world’s top economies, convened by Energy for a Secure Future.
Their message to the world was simple: Indigenous communities in Canada can and should be partners at the table when it comes to developing and sharing our country’s vast natural resources. And it may have resonated.
For John Desjarlais, executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network, the vote of confidence for LNG is music to his ears.
“I’d like to think that we were heard – we met with some pretty influential people and heard some of the right things,” he said.
“For them to make that commitment is a big deal, and certainly a difference from some of the early indicators before the G7.”
Tapped earlier this year as the new executive director of the Indigenous Resource Network, Desjarlais found himself in Ottawa with other Indigenous leaders in April, meeting with diplomatic representatives from Canada’s G7 partners – Germany, France, Japan and the United States – as well as delegations from Poland and India.
Desjarlais said he was surprised just how open diplomats were to the notion that Indigenous communities in Canada can be key players in the global energy marketplace.
“What a whirlwind. It was inspiring, especially speaking with the ambassadors,” Desjarlais said of the two-day diplomatic blitz that both challenged perceptions and paved a path for Indigenous voices to play a greater role on the international stage.
“Every official had a real desire to really understand Indigenous sentiment around resource development. There was a sincere desire to learn from our perspective.”
First Nations and Metis have emerged as key partners in Canadian resource projects, particularly the country’s nascent LNG industry.
Global demand for reliable and responsibly produced LNG has continued to grow, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year thrusting it into even greater prominence. The leaders of Canada’s G7 partners Germany and Japan both came to Canada last year to make direct appeals for more Canadian LNG – they left with no firm commitments.
Desjarlais and a group of fellow Indigenous leaders who are on the advisory council for Energy for a Secure Future – a non-partisan coalition of business, labour and Indigenous representatives – outlined their vision for how Canada and First Nations can help be a solution in the drive for increased global energy security, while also helping lower emissions by providing a cleaner alternative to coal.
Crystal Smith, chief councillor of the Haisla Nation on B.C.’s coast, said the first step is dispelling the notion that Indigenous people oppose resource development in Canada.
“When Europeans, Asians and Americans think of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, they often think we oppose all energy development,” she said during a press conference to mark April’s diplomatic meetings.
“We aren’t victims of development. Increasingly we are partners and even owners in major projects.”
The Haisla Nation has a 50 per cent ownership stake in the proposed $3-billion Cedar LNG project, which was granted regulatory approval earlier this year, and is expected to begin operations in 2027.
It marks the largest Indigenous-owned infrastructure project in Canadian history, as well as the first Indigenous-owned LNG terminal in the world.
Karen Ogen, CEO of the First Nations LNG Alliance, said it’s projects like Cedar LNG and others currently under development that will not only help Indigenous communities achieve prosperity, but help the global community in the quest for vital energy security.
“LNG development has provided immediate- and medium-termed opportunities to lift thousands of Indigenous people and our communities out of inter-generational poverty,” she said.
“We are determined to develop our resources in a socially and environmentally responsible way. We want to work with Canada and our allies in the G7 to bring urgency to the development and export of Canadian LNG.”
Beyond Cedar LNG, dozens of First Nations and Métis communities have entered into equity ownership agreements in pipelines, LNG facilities and carbon capture and storage projects, among others.
The Ksi Lisims LNG project, a joint venture with the Nisga’a Nation in northern B.C., has been granted a 40-year export licence from the Canada Energy Regulator, while in Atlantic Canada the Miawpukek First Nation is a part-owner of the proposed export project LNG Newfoundland and Labrador.
Large consortiums representing Indigenous communities have also acquired or are looking to acquire stakes in major pipeline projects including Coastal GasLink, Trans Mountain, and several oil sands pipelines.
According to Desjarlais, the Ottawa summit proved to be a fruitful meeting of the minds. He said it could signal a more important role for Indigenous communities both as more equal resource partners in Canada, but on the world stage as well. The group has been asked to meet again in June with U.S. ambassador David Cohen.
“I never thought it would accelerate to this point – it’s accelerating so fast,” he said.
“Ownership is reconciliation. There’s a whole cascade of benefits that come from these projects everywhere.”
Wapisiw Lookout, reclaimed site of the oil sands industry’s first tailings pond, which started in 1967. The area was restored to a solid surface in 2010 and now functions as a 220-acre watershed. Photo courtesy Suncor Energy
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By CEC Research
Mines demonstrate significant strides through technological innovation
Tailings are a byproduct of mining operations around the world.
In Alberta’s oil sands, tailings are a fluid mixture of water, sand, silt, clay and residual bitumen generated during the extraction process.
Engineered basins or “tailings ponds” store the material and help oil sands mining projects recycle water, reducing the amount withdrawn from the Athabasca River.
In 2023, 79 per cent of the water used for oil sands mining was recycled, according to the latest data from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).
Decades of operations, rising production and federal regulations prohibiting the release of process-affected water have contributed to a significant accumulation of oil sands fluid tailings.
The Mining Association of Canada describes that:
“Like many other industrial processes, the oil sands mining process requires water.
However, while many other types of mines in Canada like copper, nickel, gold, iron ore and diamond mines are allowed to release water (effluent) to an aquatic environment provided that it meets stringent regulatory requirements, there are no such regulations for oil sands mines.
Instead, these mines have had to retain most of the water used in their processes, and significant amounts of accumulated precipitation, since the mines began operating.”
Despite this ongoing challenge, oil sands mining operators have made significant strides in reducing fluid tailings through technological innovation.
This is demonstrated by reductions in “legacy fluid tailings” since 2015.
Legacy Fluid Tailings vs. New Fluid Tailings
As part of implementing the Tailings Management Framework introduced in March 2015, the AER released Directive 085: Fluid Tailings Management for Oil Sands Mining Projects in July 2016.
Directive 085 introduced new criteria for the measurement and closure of “legacy fluid tailings” separate from those applied to “new fluid tailings.”
Legacy fluid tailings are defined as those deposited in storage before January 1, 2015, while new fluid tailings are those deposited in storage after January 1, 2015.
The new rules specified that new fluid tailings must be ready to reclaim ten years after the end of a mine’s life, while legacy fluid tailings must be ready to reclaim by the end of a mine’s life.
Total Oil Sands Legacy Fluid Tailings
Alberta’s oil sands mining sector decreased total legacy fluid tailings by approximately 40 per cent between 2015 and 2024, according to the latest company reporting to the AER.
Total legacy fluid tailings in 2024 were approximately 623 million cubic metres, down from about one billion cubic metres in 2015.
The reductions are led by the sector’s longest-running projects: Suncor Energy’s Base Mine (opened in 1967), Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Mine (opened in 1978), and Syncrude’s Aurora North Mine (opened in 2001). All are now operated by Suncor Energy.
The Horizon Mine, operated by Canadian Natural Resources (opened in 2009) also reports a significant reduction in legacy fluid tailings.
The Muskeg River Mine (opened in 2002) and Jackpine Mine (opened in 2010) had modest changes in legacy fluid tailings over the period. Both are now operated by Canadian Natural Resources.
Imperial Oil’s Kearl Mine (opened in 2013) and Suncor Energy’s Fort Hills Mine (opened in 2018) have no reported legacy fluid tailings.
Suncor Energy Base Mine
Between 2015 and 2024, Suncor Energy’s Base Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 98 per cent, from 293 million cubic metres to 6 million cubic metres.
Syncrude Mildred Lake Mine
Between 2015 and 2024, Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 15 per cent, from 457 million cubic metres to 389 million cubic metres.
Syncrude Aurora North Mine
Between 2015 and 2024, Syncrude’s Aurora North Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 25 per cent, from 102 million cubic metres to 77 million cubic metres.
Canadian Natural Resources Horizon Mine
Between 2015 and 2024, Canadian Natural Resources’ Horizon Mine reduced legacy fluid tailings by approximately 36 per cent, from 66 million cubic metres to 42 million cubic metres.
Total Oil Sands Fluid Tailings
Reducing legacy fluid tailings has helped slow the overall growth of fluid tailings across the oil sands sector.
Without efforts to reduce legacy fluid tailings, the total oil sands fluid tailings footprint today would be approximately 1.6 billion cubic metres.
The current fluid tailings volume stands at approximately 1.2 billion cubic metres, up from roughly 1.1 billion in 2015.
The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.
The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
Moratorium does little to improve marine safety while sending the wrong message to energy investors
In 2019, Martha Hall Findlay, then-CEO of the Canada West Foundation, penned a strongly worded op-ed in the Globe and Mail calling the federal ban of oil tankers on B.C.’s northern coast “un-Canadian.”
Six years later, her opinion hasn’t changed.
“It was bad legislation and the government should get rid of it,” said Hall Findlay, now director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.
The moratorium, known as Bill C-48, banned vessels carrying more than 12,500 tonnes of oil from accessing northern B.C. ports.
Targeting products from one sector in one area does little to achieve the goal of overall improved marine transport safety, she said.
“There are risks associated with any kind of transportation with any goods, and not all of them are with oil tankers. All that singling out one part of one coast did was prevent more oil and gas from being produced that could be shipped off that coast,” she said.
Hall Findlay is a former Liberal MP who served as Suncor Energy’s chief sustainability officer before taking on her role at the University of Calgary.
She sees an opportunity to remove the tanker moratorium in light of changing attitudes about resource development across Canada and a new federal government that has publicly committed to delivering nation-building energy projects.
“There’s a greater recognition in large portions of the public across the country, not just Alberta and Saskatchewan, that Canada is too dependent on the United States as the only customer for our energy products,” she said.
“There are better alternatives to C-48, such as setting aside what are called Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, which have been established in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands.”
The Business Council of British Columbia, which represents more than 200 companies, post-secondary institutions and industry associations, echoes Hall Findlay’s call for the tanker ban to be repealed.
“Comparable shipments face no such restrictions on the East Coast,” said Denise Mullen, the council’s director of environment, sustainability and Indigenous relations.
“This unfair treatment reinforces Canada’s over-reliance on the U.S. market, where Canadian oil is sold at a discount, by restricting access to Asia-Pacific markets.
“This results in billions in lost government revenues and reduced private investment at a time when our economy can least afford it.”
The ban on tanker traffic specifically in northern B.C. doesn’t make sense given Canada already has strong marine safety regulations in place, Mullen said.
Notably, completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2024 also doubled marine spill response capacity on Canada’s West Coast. A $170 million investment added new equipment, personnel and response bases in the Salish Sea.
“The [C-48] moratorium adds little real protection while sending a damaging message to global investors,” she said.
“This undermines the confidence needed for long-term investment in critical trade-enabling infrastructure.”
Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais senses there’s an openness to revisiting the issue for Indigenous communities.
“Sentiment has changed and evolved in the past six years,” he said.
“There are still concerns and trust that needs to be built. But there’s also a recognition that in addition to environmental impacts, [there are] consequences of not doing it in terms of an economic impact as well as the cascading socio-economic impacts.”
The ban effectively killed the proposed $16-billion Eagle Spirit project, an Indigenous-led pipeline that would have shipped oil from northern Alberta to a tidewater export terminal at Prince Rupert, B.C.
“When you have Indigenous participants who want to advance these projects, the moratorium needs to be revisited,” Desjarlais said.
He notes that in the six years since the tanker ban went into effect, there are growing partnerships between B.C. First Nations and the energy industry, including the Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG project and the Nisga’a Nation’s Ksi Lisims LNG project.
This has deepened the trust that projects can mitigate risks while providing economic reconciliation and benefits to communities, Dejarlais said.
“Industry has come leaps and bounds in terms of working with First Nations,” he said.
“They are treating the rights of the communities they work with appropriately in terms of project risk and returns.”
Hall Findlay is cautiously optimistic that the tanker ban will be replaced by more appropriate legislation.
“I’m hoping that we see the revival of a federal government that brings pragmatism to governing the country,” she said.
“Repealing C-48 would be a sign of that happening.”
Power Struggle: Electric vehicles and reality
China undermining American energy independence, report says
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
Electric vehicle sales are falling hard in BC, and it is time to recognize reality.
Elon Musk slams Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ calls for new political party
Trump on Canada tariff deadline: ‘We can do whatever we want’
-
Business1 day agoCanada’s loyalty to globalism is bleeding our economy dry
-
Agriculture2 days agoCanada’s supply management system is failing consumers
-
Alberta1 day agoCOVID mandates protester in Canada released on bail after over 2 years in jail
-
armed forces1 day agoCanada’s Military Can’t Be Fixed With Cash Alone
-
Alberta24 hours agoAlberta Next: Alberta Pension Plan
-
International1 day agoTrump transportation secretary tells governors to remove ‘rainbow crosswalks’
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s spending makes Trudeau look like a cheapskate
-
Crime2 days agoProject Sleeping Giant: Inside the Chinese Mercantile Machine Linking Beijing’s Underground Banks and the Sinaloa Cartel