- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
How to Kill a Heritage River
Inside the fight to save Alberta's pristine Clearwater from massive 'industrial withdrawal'.
The Clearwater River: to be siphoned for steam for oil sands? Photo David Dodge, Pembina Institute.
When John Beaton first heard about Opti-Nexen's proposals to withdraw 17,000 cubic meters of water a day from the fabled Clearwater River last year, the oil sands mechanic just shook his head.
"That's a Heritage River. The government will never allow it," thought the 41-year-old Fort McMurray resident. Beaton and his wife even signed a petition against the scheme along with nearly 2,000 other residents.
To the Beatons and their two daughters Alysa and Kaela the river is one of the region's greatest treasures and best kept secrets. During the summer folks simply drive downtown, put in their boats and within minutes quickly enter "a whole another world."
But when Opti-Nexen, the largest steam plant operator in the oil sands, persisted with the water taking proposal, Beaton, a native of Cape Breton Island, decided to do something.
"No one wants to hurt the hand that feds us," says Beaton. "And Fort McMurray has given my wife and I a great life. But the Clearwater is really important. And they can't mess with that."
In fact the self-effacing oil sands worker now finds himself in the middle of an alarming water controversy in the world's largest energy project. At stake is a 195 kilometre long pristine river that empties into the Athabasca River, as well as future business models for the water hungry steam plant producers in the region.
'Every company will want to do it'
"If Nexen can target a Heritage River for industrial withdrawal," notes one regional expert, "than every company along the river will want to do it. And if Nexen is having trouble getting water for its operations than all the Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) projects will be having troubles too."
The river, which achieved Canadian Heritage River status in Saskatchewan in 1987 and in Alberta in 2004 after a lengthy community-based negotiations, is largely untouched and richly historic. At one time it was at the centre of the fur trade and transported adventurers and explorers as famous as Peter Pond and Sir John Franklin.
In fact locals prize the river so highly for its quiet, clarity and beauty that the oil sands industry loosely promised not to touch the river nearly a decade ago. But with few exceptions almost every steam plant or SAGD producer (nearly 100 projects) now has concerns about the availability of water from aquifers or surface supplies for bitumen production.
Opti-Nexen's designs on the Clearwater
Opti-Nexen leads the pack. In 2003 the Calgary-based energy company now plagued with debt, got approval to build the $6-billion Long Lake project 40 k.m. south of Fort McMurray. Nexen then touted its steam plant facility and accompanying upgrader as a cleaner and better way to make bitumen.
Unlike big mining projects that suck up vast amounts of water from the Athabasca River, the steam plant builder vowed to use mostly brackish groundwater to melt deep asphalt-like reservoirs in order to produce up to 72,000 barrels of bitumen a day.
A letter from Mike Burt of OPTI-Canada to the Pembina Institute in 2003 even confirmed that the company was "now prepared to commit to include McMurray brackish water as a source, in addition to fresh water supplies, for the base project design."
But immature steaming technology combined with water-laden and impoverished bitumen deposits have given the Long Lake project unending headaches and steady financial losses.
The company initially reckoned it would take 2.4 barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen. But that figure climbed to an average of six barrels. Moreover, production never reached 72,000 barrels but got stuck at 27,000 barrels and is now declining due to persistent operational problems.
Opti Canada, which owns 35 per cent of the project and is now teetering on bankruptcy, predicted in its 2008 financial statement that the steam technology was subject to "uncertainty." If steam demands rose above three barrels per one barrel of bitumen the report concluded that costs would go up while production declined, placing the whole project at risk.
At the same time Nexen's annual Sustainability Reports noted that the company's freshwater and saline groundwater diversions at Long Lake increased from 735,000 cubic metres in 2007 to an astounding 2,239,000 cubic metres in 2009.
Shortly afterwards the water troubled company announced that it would target the Clearwater River as a future source of water for its bitumen upgrading facility.
No environmental 'implications' says company
Company spokesman Pierre Alvarez, the former director of the Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers, recently told the CBC Radio that the Heritage River offered the smallest environmental impact. Building a long pipeline to the Athabasca River or drilling more groundwater wells throughout the forest would disturb more land, said Alvarez.
"We don't think there will be any implications from this."
But Beaton and many long-term residents of Fort McMurray disagree. For starters, the application calls for between 17,000 to 25,000 cubic metres a day with room for expansion. A proposed pump house will have the capacity for 77,000 cubic metres. "That's a helluva lot of water," says Beaton.
And with the exception of small withdrawals for a local ski hill and nursery, the river now remains untapped by industry. "It's the last ribbon of green around up here when you look at all the land leases up here," adds Beaton. "It's vital to keep it healthy because it's all we have left."
So last year Beaton built a six by eight-foot billboard and mounted it on the back of his half-ton truck. It reads: "Wood Buffalo: Please Save Our Clearwater River From Industry."
Letter to the premier
Last February the bold sign caught the attention of Premier Ed Stelmach during a Fort McMurray visit. The Premier even encouraged Beaton to write him a letter about the matter. Beaton dutifully obliged.
John Beaton with daughter and sign he made. Wood Buffalo is the regional municipality that include Ft. McMurray and nine other towns near the oil sands.
Beaton's earnest letter explained why the river meant so much to his neighbours and fellow workers in the bitumen city. The Clearwater, he said, was simply the place where his daughters "experienced catching their first fish, camping in a tent, playing on a sandbar, skipping rocks, swimming against the current of the river. . . picking wild blueberries. . . The Clearwater has taught them to respect and appreciate Mother Nature."
Added the letter: "My daughters just don't get it -- they don't understand why oil is more important than the place they love most -- I don't get it either, it actually breaks my heart. The Borealis forest has made a great sacrifice in order to fuel the oilsands. Why not bring that one little green ribbon that brings so much pleasure to so many lives?"
The Premier replied with a short note that said "our policy is minimize or eliminate the use of fresh water where there are possible alternatives." He also encouraged Beaton to contact Patick Marriott, acting regional approvals manager for the Alberta environment ministry.
Beaton rang him up but admits that he didn't have much of a conversation with the water bureaucrat. "He couldn't tell me much." Nor could Beaton find any transparent disclosure on the application process on a government website.
'I'll talk to anyone'
After being profiled by the local radio station and Fort McMurray Today, Beaton has now set his sights on city council and Mayor Melissa Blake. In fact "I'll talk to anyone who will listen."
Beaton is not alone. The Clearwater River Heritage River Society, a non profit group made of trappers, kayakers and snowmobilers, is 100 per cent behind the Nova Scotia native.
Even Tory MP Brian Jean, who represents the region, has opposed the application on the grounds that a Heritage River designation means that "the river will be managed to conserve its outstanding natural, cultural and/or recreational values." Last year Jean penned a blunt letter to the Premier too:
"I strongly believe that to approve this application would set a dangerous and undesirable precedent for the future. . . Taking surface water for use directly in the SAGD process must be strictly prohibited in defense of Alberta's long-term sustainable future."
In fact the Council of Canadian Academies concluded in a 2009 groundwater report that steam plants in the Wood Buffalo region could ultimately use more water than the mining operations. It also raised serious concerns about the sustainability of current groundwater withdrawals given the lack of groundwater mapping.
To date Beaton remains undaunted. "We have a gold mine here. We just have to use it right. You'd think though that we would have learned from past experiences with fisheries and forests. Why should we have to take water from a Heritage River? I'd like Nexen to get water for its upgrader but there has to be another way to do it."
He says he's got another question for the federal government too: "Are Canadians going to stoop to a new low and sacrifice a Heritage River in the name of progress?"
It's a query on the minds of more and more oil sands workers in the country's biggest boom town. ![]()




11
Login or register to post comments
snert
1 year ago
A "heritage river"
Wow! It must be really special. Romanticizing the environment does absolutely nothing for the cause, in the long run.
Camero409
1 year ago
snert
EDITED FOR PERSONAL INSULTS Progress is preserving what you have not destroying it for the almighty dollar. EDITED FOR INSULTS -- NOT ALLOWED ON TYEE COMMENT THREAD you are the ones touting destruction at any cost.
jacksonupnorth
1 year ago
Yes Camero409, he isEDITED FOR PERSONAL INSULT OF A COMMENTER
I really commend the citizens for trying to save the river. Water is a precious resource. It is very difficult to fight big business with their unlimited financial resources.The best thing they can do is to keep on showing the rest of the world what is going on up there.
Jeffrey J.
1 year ago
17,000,000 litres of water!
The sleight of hand by corporate spin doctors continues unabated.
What is a cubic meter of water? No-one knows, as it is a deliberate ploy to obscure the real volumes.
One cubic meter equals 1000 liters. 17 thousand cubic meters equals 17,000,000 litres!
One cubic meter equals 264 gallons. 17 thousand cubic meters thus equals 4,488,000 gallons.
I see that Fukushima has also adopted this slight of hand in describing the release of millions of gallons of radioactive water into our oceans.
Thank you as always to Mr. Nikiforuk for keeping us informed as we watch out world being liquidated.
G West
1 year ago
snert - did you ONLY read the headline?
Seems so my friend. Because if you'd read the article you 'might' have encountered this:
The river, which achieved Canadian Heritage River status in Saskatchewan in 1987 and in Alberta in 2004 after a lengthy community-based negotiations, is largely untouched and richly historic. At one time it was at the centre of the fur trade and transported adventurers and explorers as famous as Peter Pond and Sir John Franklin.
If something is designated 'heritage' by someone other than a headline writer (and as far back as 1987) then I think we're talking a little more than 'romanticism' don't you?
snert
1 year ago
G West
Sorry but, I still stand by what I said. Now to address the question of whether or not it's a good idea to save the river, certainly it is.
As usual your ability to jump to the wrong conclusion is exquisite, in the league with a few others as well, I see. And I thought you were a good reader.
G West
1 year ago
Snert - thank you for the apology -
The river is a heritage river - it has been so designated long before it was threatened by the current crop of freebooters.
Using a term like 'heritage' river that others have used for other historical reasons can't be simply dismissed under your derogatory label: to wit, 'romanticizing'
I am a good reader - that's why it's so simple to poke holes in the useless verbiage from nonsense writers when they show up here from time to time.
As for your point, even if it were an accurate representation of what's going on here, it can hardly be said that 'romanticizing' is not an effective way of making an argument 'for' the environment.
In fact, that kind of image building is exactly the kind of successful campaign that was used and is still used to create an awareness of the need for wilderness reserves and natural parks.
Anyone who cares to do the necessary intellectual work will be able to confirm this by education themselves about the history of Natural Parks in both the United States and Canada.
People are emotional beings, they respond to emotional appeals. Using language to further those appeals isn't just sensible and necessary, in an age where it's often difficult to determine if there is any 'public' intelligence left in the population, it may be imperative.
Romanticizing what we are in danger of losing forever may, in fact, be the real key to awakening citizens from the soporific sleep of the well-fed and nearly dead.
snert
1 year ago
G West
You assume that will lead to the best solution to a problem and I think that is a dangerous assumption and therein lies the rub.
It's good to know you put such stock in emotionalism although, I'm pretty sure it's not a good idea to be emotional when one is trying to reach a rational conclusion to any issue.
and other things, not always good.
Then there's that "public intelligence" issue, make up your mind. Are they smart or not? Or, can't you tell?
G West
1 year ago
When it comes to caring about the environment and the future
I don't just assume it - I know it.
You might want to take in Edward Burtynsky's work
snert
1 year ago
G West
No, you assume, because there is no final proof and won't be in your life time.
G West
1 year ago
If we don't start giving a shit
First of all, I'm a lot younger than you are and I think I will see the final proof in my lifetime.
That being said, if we don't start giving a shit NOW there will be no kind of decent future for anyone.
That, my mudslinging friend, is the problem.
About you, however, I wouldn't ASSUME anything.