Nine out of 10 oilsands producers in Alberta got a failing grade in a new study that compared the environmental records of the different companies.
The and World Wildlife Fund looked at the 10 largest producers and compared them against the best performer in each of 20 categories, making it a true "apples to apples" report, said Dan Woynillowicz, of the Pembina Institute.
The 20 questions the companies were asked touched on issues such as environmental management, land, air emissions, water and climate change.
The results suggested that no one company excelled in all areas, and even the top performers had little to brag about -- suggesting there is great room for improvement.
"Albion Sands was the best performer overall but there was no one company that was at the top of the class on each of those indicators," Woynillowicz told CTV's Canada AM.
"For example, Albian Sands performed very well on greenhouse gas pollution but dismally on water use so we've got some companies that are doing well on some things but poorly on others."
The collected data was adjusted to be comparable and only mining operations were considered in the study. The companies examined in the study were given the chance to comment on the data last June and again in September.
Their answers were scored and the results were measured as a percentage of a possible maximum.
Albian's Muskeg mine scored the highest overall with just 56 per cent, while Syncrude and Syneco ranked last, with only 18 per cent.
Here are the 10 companies probed in the report, listed in the order they were ranked:
- Albian Sands Muskeg
- Total E&P
- Petro-Canada Oil Sands
- Shell Canada
- Imperial Oil
- Suncor
- Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.
- Albian Sands Muskeg expansion
- Syncrude
- Syneco
Environmental toll
Woynillowicz said the results show that Alberta's oilsands are growing so rapidly, and taking such a toll on the environment, that there must be better compulsory standards and regulation on the industry.
For example, he said, the amount of water used in the oilsands on a daily basis is twice the amount used by the Municipality of Calgary each day. Further, unlike the water used by Calgary, it becomes so badly polluted during use that it cannot be released back into the environment.
The amount of energy used on a daily basis is also staggering, Woynillowicz said.
"The natural gas consumption on a daily basis is equivalent to heating three million homes a day, so a huge amount of energy, and that translates into a lot of greenhouse gas pollution."
The 10 operating and proposed companies were asked if they had third-party verification of their environmental management strategies or if they had plans to reduce their water use and air emissions.
Albian Sands and Imperial did use a third party, but none of the companies had water or air emissions reduction targets.
The worst results were in the areas of water use and climate.
On the five water-related questions, no company scored better than 50 per cent. On questions about plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, only three of the companies scored any marks at all. Of the three, Albian's existing Meskeg mine got the highest ranking with a score of 66 per cent.
The discrepancy in the scores in different areas suggests the government must step in and take a greater regulatory role in what is the "world's largest industrial project" and one that comes "at a very high environmental cost," Woynillowicz said.
Rob Powell, one of the report's authors, agreed. He told The Canadian Press the companies are getting away with too much.
"We're not getting the kind of regulatory oversight that's required to achieve a reasonable standard of environmental performance," Powell said.
"Why are they not insisting that these companies perform to the best available current standard?''
Powell also pointed out that Albian's proposed expansion to its Muskeg mine ranks far lower than its existing project, scoring only 26 per cent.
