Thread by @andrew_leach

Maybe if we ignore the issue, that will be fine? This is how the JRP into the Teck Frontier oil sands mine dealt with oil demand forecasts and a world acting on climate change. #ableg 1/N

Let's unpack that for just a second. Part of the mandate of the panel is to assess the need for the project. Teck says, "yes, it will be needed because the IEA forecasts that oil demand will increase to 110mmbbl/d by 2040." That's part's not wrong, just incomplete. 2/N

The IEA tests a number of scenarios, and they one which shows oil demand increasing to those levels is one where the world doesn't take aggressive action on climate change. They also model what happens if the world acts (Sust Dev Scenario) 3/N

This type of a relationship is widely seen in the modelling of global energy systems. In theory, you can cut emissions deeply and grow oil demand, but once you deal with the entire energy system, that possibility goes away quickly. See, for example, this graph. 4/N

Using all the runs from energy systems models feeding into the IPCC 1.5C report, there are scenarios of a 2C world where oil demand grows until 2040 (although not to 110 MMbbl/d) but the median scenario doesn't hold that at all. For 1.5C scenarios, no model does. 5/N

When the panel says at [148] that it, "accepts Teck’s use of the International Energy
Agency forecast for future global oil consumption as support for of its need to proceed with the project," they are accepting that the world is not going to act aggressively on climate. 6/N

That's certainly within the authority of the panel to adjudicate. It's also true that there is, "considerable uncertainty regarding forecasts for future oil
prices and [...] about how Canada and other countries will address
greenhouse gas emissions targets in the future." 7/N

If only there were some solution to this type of uncertainty available to a review panel. Perhaps, and I'm just going out on a limb here, they could ask the proponents to report on the viability of their project under something other than the best case scenario? 8/N

Let's jump next to some other aspects of the report. According to the panel summary, "Teck submitted that the Frontier project will be 'best in class' with respect to greenhouse gas emissions intensity. Teck's own numbers dispute that, as the panel acknowledges. 9/N

Teck estimates the direct GHG intensity at 38.4 kg CO2e/bbl, or 40.4 kg CO2e/bbl once you include net imports of electricity. [891] ECCC estimated them to be a bit higher, at 43kg/bbl. Still, even with Teck's numbers, that's not going to be better than Kearl or Fort Hills. 10/N

The panel goes on to cite Alberta's CCIR policy as a means to drive emissions intensity reductions, but then they make a really incomprehensible statement about AB policy. I don't know where this comes from. 11/N

At [909], "The panel finds that the project greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated under Alberta’s
legislative scheme in relation to GHGs and that the project will be required to
demonstrate continual improvement in GHG performance." Under which policy is that?

The recommendations: "Develop [a GHG mgmt plan that] would include measures to demonstrate and measure how Teck will achieve emissions intensity “best-in-class” status." What now? This is the design of a new project. This is when a lot of this gets baked-in.

But, in case you were worried that the panel was being too prescriptive, the next clause holds that Teck should "demonstrate a commitment to continually improve the efficiency of energy use and related
GHGs in an effort to outperform regulations that are in effect."

"The panel accepts that Teck has committed to be a top quartile performer in oil sands GHG intensity and [...] through the development and implementation of [...] a detailed GHG plan [...] and a continuous improvement approach, Teck should be able to realize its aspiration."

If you wanted to read a document that shows that our regulators are not taking the link between our energy economy and global and domestic GHG emissions policies seriously, we've pretty much got it. This report puts a big challenge in front of Minister @JonathanWNV.

@JonathanWNV You'd think that maybe, after NEB's decision to ignore that a pipeline connecting the oil sands to a tanker loading terminal might have marine implications became a key point in the FCA quashing the TMX permit, this JRP would have taken issues of scope a bit more seriously.