Chapter 13 Review Questions

F (see “Framing Issues and Questions”)

T (see “Potash and Coal”)

T (see “Potash and Coal”)

F (see “Cost”)

F (see “Wind Power”)

T (see “Energy Use and Issues in Canada”)

F (see “Solar Power”)

T (see “Uranium”)

T (see “Coal”)

T (see “Sustainable Energy Pathways”)

Renewable, or flow, resources renew naturally within a relatively short period of time, such as water, air, animals, plants, solar radiation, wind power, and tidal energy. Figure 13.5 identifies three renewable energy sources; one of these, gravity, is ongoing and widespread but remains as only potential energy unless associated with significant motion, such as tides or river flow. Geothermal heat, solar-based energy, and biomass energy sources are also examples.

Non-renewable, or stock, resources take millions of years to form and once used are either consumed through use, such as fossil fuels, or can be recycled, such as metals. Non-renewable sources cannot be replenished over a period of time short enough to support humans. These sources result from geological processes over millions of years, which lead to solid (coal), liquid (oil, natural gas), and nuclear fuels. While they all share the characteristic of offering high energy content per unit of weight or volume, they also differ.

(see “Introduction”, “Energy Resources”)

Non-renewable resource management concerns focus on how to:

• conserve mineral or fossil-fuel assets to extend the longevity of reserves and how to identify substitutes for use in the long run;
• minimize negative environmental impacts at each stage in the life cycle of use: exploration, extraction, transformation, consumption, recycling, and final disposal;
• create improved socio-economic relationships with stakeholders, especially communities located in a mining area; and
• manage recyclable non-renewable resources - i.e., many metals and minerals - as a renewable or flow resource.
  (see “Framing Issues and Questions”)

The main environmental issues for the mining and energy sectors include acid mine drainage, sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions, and metal toxicity.

• Acid mine drainage. Most non-ferrous metals exist as sulphides and usually are accompanied by iron sulphides. When ore minerals are separated from minerals without economic value, significant quantities of waste rock and tailings are created, and they contain iron sulphides that can readily oxidize to become sulphuric acid. When exposed to precipitation (rain or snow), sulphuric acid can dissolve residual metals, leading to acidic drainage, which can continue for centuries. Liabilities for the Canadian mining industry related to acidic drainage are estimated to extend up to $5 billion, making it the biggest environmental liability for mining operations in both Canada and internationally
• Sulphur dioxide emissions. One outcome of smelting sulphide ores is the release of huge quantities of sulphur, mainly in the form of dioxides, into the atmosphere, thereby creating acid precipitation. The Canadian mining sector is the main contributor to sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada. The burning of fossil fuels is also a major source of atmospheric emissions of sulphur dioxides, creating pressure for alternative sources of energy.
• Metal toxicity. The mining industry is being challenged about the toxic effects of metals on human and ecosystem health. For example, many uses of asbestos are now not acceptable because of connections established between it and cancer. Lead is also toxic. Emissions from smelting and steelmaking processes can also threaten health. (see “Framing Issues and Questions”)

Diamonds are a crystalline type of carbon, stable at depths of 150 km or more beneath the Earth’s surface. Kimberlite is a rare igneous rock found at the same or greater depth. Eruptions of kimberlite can transport diamonds to the surface of the Earth.
(see “The Ekati Mine, NWT”)

The environmental context:

A claim was staked by BHP for an area of 3,400 km² some 300 kilometres northeast of Yellowknife. The mining activity is located mainly in the Koala catchment, which drains into Lac de Gras and then northward into the Coppermine River and on to the Arctic Ocean. The Ekati mine is in a tundra region, with thousands of lakes and continuous permafrost: permanently frozen subsoil and rock up to 250 metres deep, and an overlayer of about one metre that thaws during summer. The area supports both caribou and grizzly bears; both considered at risk species.

Economic and social cost:

The total project capital cost is estimated to be $1.2 billion, the contribution to the Canadian gross national product will be $6.2 billion, and the benefits to the NWT will be $2.5 billion (60 per cent being wages and benefits).

The mining company’s policy has been to first to prioritize hiring NWT Indigenous people, then non-Indigenous NWT residents, and finally other Canadians. When Indigenous people do not have the necessary skills, the company provides appropriate education and training. The company also committed to give preference to Indigenous-owned businesses for contracting, and to establish scholarship programs, on-the-job training programs for Indigenous students, and cross-cultural training in the workplace.
(see “Environmental Context, Economic and Social Context”)

Frozen core dams have a central core of frozen soil saturated with ice and bonded to the natural permafrost. The core is surrounded with granular fill to ensure both stability and thermal protection. The use of a frozen core and permafrost foundation ensures that no water can escape through the dams as long as the soil remains saturated with ice. The design has the tailings gradually consolidating and becoming permafrost.
(see “Mining Tailings”)

Environmental Agreement. The Environmental Agreement is legally binding and requires BHP to (1) prepare a plan for environmental management during the construction and operation of the diamond mine; (2) submit annual reports related to the environmental management plan; (3) prepare an impact report every three years related to the project; (4) establish a monitoring program for air and water quality and for wildlife; (5) submit a reclamation plan for approval; (6) establish a security deposit ($11+ million) for potential land impacts and a guarantee of $20 million for potential water impacts; and (7) incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into all environmental plans and programs. In addition, the Independent Environmental Monitoring Agency (IEMA) was established in February 1997 by the two governments and BHP as a non-profit organization to function as a public watchdog monitoring the environmental management at the Ekati diamond mine.

Socio-economic Agreement (SEA). This agreement between BHP and the government of the Northwest Territories addressed commitments beyond statutory requirements. The concern was economic benefits and social impacts related to all NWT residents, not just traditional users of the project area. The agreement covered matters such as preferential hiring of NWT residents (with a target of 62 per cent northerners and 31 per cent Indigenous people), criteria to guide recruitment, overall employment targets, employment of local contractors, training programs, and employment support. Targets were also specified for awarding contracts to and purchases from northern businesses.

Impact and Benefit Agreements. Impact and benefit agreements (IBAs) address community and industry relations in mining or other extractive resource activities. They are voluntary agreements, beyond formal impact assessment requirements, intended to facilitate extraction of resources in a way that contributes to the economic and social well-being of local people and communities, and to create opportunities for communities to participate in the management, monitoring, and mitigation of impacts. In 1994, BHP signed four IBAs with Indigenous communities in the region of the Ekati mine addressing annual cash payments to Indigenous communities, provision of funds for scholarships, preferential business opportunities for and hiring of Indigenous people, and initiatives to protect the environment. (see “Agreements and Arrangements”)

BHP observed that it faced serious challenges in its efforts to include traditional knowledge into its research program.

1. First, the Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 Dene groups were in the midst of land claim negotiations and were reluctant to release traditional knowledge into the public domain because the knowledge was important for their negotiation strategy.
2. Indigenous people expressed concern about traditional knowledge being used outside the context of the cultures and broader system of knowledge that gives it meaning.
3. No one set of traditional knowledge exists, since the Inuit, Métis, and Dene each have their own traditional knowledge, which do not always coincide.
4. Indigenous people view traditional knowledge as their intellectual property, and therefore its use and management had to remain within their control.
5. There was no documented baseline of traditional knowledge, nor were there any generally accepted standards or methods to guide traditional knowledge research.
   (see “Assembling Data Related to Environmental Impacts”)

1992: BHP began research to understand the impact of the proposed mining activity and to develop mitigation measures. Company representatives visited all communities in the project area.

1994: Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development referred the mining project for an environmental assessment.

1995: BHP submitted its environmental impact statement.

1996: An environmental assessment panel appointed by the minister of Environment held public meetings, and its report was submitted to the federal government.

1997: Federal government gave formal approval, and construction started.

1999: First diamonds from Ekati were sold in Antwerp, Belgium.
(see “Environmental Assessment Process”)

Some 500 kilometres north of Thunder Bay, a wilderness area of just over 5,000 km² is the traditional homeland of the Marten Falls First Nation. Geological exploration has revealed massive deposits of chromite, used in making stainless steel, believed to be sufficient to maintain mining for 150–200 years. This area has been labelled the “Ring of Fire,” named by a mining company executive who also is a fan of singer Johnny Cash. If the deposits are developed, massive change will occur in the area, ranging from a new 350-kilometre railway, a processing plant, jobs for Indigenous people for several generations in an area with few employment opportunities, and significant tax revenue to the Ontario provincial government. The history of the Ring of Fire highlights the multiple dimensions often associated with a proposed mining operation. In addition to addressing technical issues, decision-makers normally have to resolve conflict among and uncertainty for stakeholders. The rich Ring of Fire mineral deposits are locked in a complex struggle between Indigenous communities worried about large-scale development and governments and industry seeking to “open” the region for business.
(see “Ring of Fire”)

Advantages of wind power:

• Wind power does not require fuel, create greenhouse gases, or produce toxic or radioactive wastes.
• The production of wind energy is quiet and not a significant hazard to birds or other wildlife.
• Large wind farms containing many wind turbines require 2 per cent of the land area, making the balance available for farming, livestock, and other uses.
• Payment is made to landowners, which provides a source of income.

Disadvantages of wind power:

• Wind is not constant, meaning that there will be times when no power is generated.
• Some people feel that wind turbines detract from landscape beauty.
• With a large wind farm containing many wind turbines, noise from the turbines may be intrusive for nearby landowners.
  (see “Advantages of Wind Power, Disadvantages of Wind Power”)

Environmental impacts of wind turbines:

• Wildlife
  Most research has focused on birds and the layout of a wind farm, specific attributes of turbines, topography, weather conditions, and types and numbers of birds and their behaviour all affect impact. Nocturnal migrants suffer the highest mortality. Also, waterfowl have higher collision rates on offshore wind farms than those on terrestrial sites. in general it appears that wildlife populations are not significantly adversely affected by wind farms.

• Habitat Loss and Change
  Wind farms often render habitats unsuitable for birds, fragmentation of habitats due to wind farms (roads, electric transmission lines) create challenges for wildlife, road construction can lead to the introduction of exotic species and increased mortality. Nevertheless, the conclusion is that disruption from wind farms is significantly less than from other types of energy extraction, such as oil and gas exploration or extraction, or surface mineral mining.

• Noise
  Disturbance from noise is influenced by many variables, including distance from source, type of background noise, and attributes of the source (frequency, time pattern, intensity). The frequency (hertz) of sound, or pitch, is another key variable, and can affect health and well-being.

• Safety
  The main safety concern is ice thrown from turbine blades or falling off the tower. Proactive steps can be taken to ensure public safety (setback criteria, temperature sensors). 

• Aesthetics
  Some people view a wind turbine field as an unwelcome visual intrusion on the landscape, especially if they feel the turbines are not in keeping with an area’s historical, cultural, or natural values. In contrast, others may enjoy the look of a wind turbine, appreciating its modern, futuristic appearance as well as the symbolism and educational role of a visible environmentally benign technology

Evidence indicates that wind turbines have minimal adverse environmental effects. However, issues of health and well-being are often a concern for nearby residents, and compared to conventional fossil fuel energy sources, wind turbines are still relatively expensive, but that has begun to change as the technology becomes less costly and fossil fuel supplies become more expensive.
(see “Environmental Impacts of Wind Turbines”)

Advantages of solar power:

• PV panels generate no harmful GHG emissions.
• Solar energy is available almost anywhere sunlight is present.
• Solar energy is most suitable for smart energy networks involving distributed power generation.
• The cost of solar panels has been dropping significantly.
• PV panels are silent and therefore appropriate for urban and residential areas.

Disadvantages of solar power:

• Solar power can be intermittent, due to cloudy or rainy conditions, and at night.
• Intermittency and unpredictability make solar energy panels less reliable than some other energy sources.
• PVs require incremental equipment, inverters, to convert direct electricity to alternating electricity, and storage batteries usually are needed.
• PV-panel installations need relatively large areas, and the land space is normally committed for 15 to 20 years or longer.
• Caustic chemicals are used in fabricating PV panels, creating challenges for disposal of the toxic wastewater, and, ultimately, of PV panels at the end of their economic life.
  (see “Advantages”, “Disadvantages”)

There are estimates of significant oil and gas reserves off the coast of British Columbia, but a federal moratorium on exploratory drilling has been in place there since 1972. The drilling moratorium affecting the waters off the British Columbia coast reflects, among others, the following concerns: jurisdictional uncertainty regarding whether the federal or provincial government owns the seabed, Indigenous land and related ocean claims, and environmental risks. The oil spill from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989 in Alaskan waters highlighted the vulnerability of BC coastal waters to environmental risk. The oil eventually covered more than 1,900 kilometres of rocky shoreline and caused the death of tens of thousands of birds, a thousand sea otters, several hundred seals, and unknown numbers of fish and other sea life. Exxon had 10,000 workers on site in the summer of 1989 for the cleanup work, which ultimately cost US$2.2 billion. Additional costs were a US$1 billion fine payable to the US and Alaskan governments and several billion dollars for damage experienced by fishers, property owners, and others.

(see “Offshore Petroleum”)

The Athabasca oil sands are one of three oil sand deposits that together extend under an area of 149,000 km², almost one-quarter the area of Alberta. During 2001, production of crude bitumen (a thick and heavy oil) surpassed production of conventional crude oil in Alberta. In 2018, production from the oil sands represented just below 84 per cent of total crude oil production in Canada.

The oil sands consist of about 10 to 12 per cent bitumen mixed with sand, silt, clay, and water. The oil removed from the oil sands is termed crude bitumen, and because it is thick and heavy, it cannot flow toward a well. As a result, two different methods are used for extraction. If the bitumen is not more than 100 metres below the surface, it is removed through surface or strip mining from open pits. The other method, used at depths greater than 100 metres, is in situ recovery through steam-assisted gravity drainage, or SAGD. This method is used for more than 90 per cent of the oil sands. The usual approach is to inject high-pressure steam into the oil sands to separate the bitumen from the sand, silt, and clay. Once exposed to the steam, bitumen can flow to a well from which it can be pumped to the surface.

(see “Background, Extracting Oil from Oil Sands”)

Oil sands operations have impacts on the boreal forest system and on water and water levels in the Athabasca River and Lake Athabasca, which feeds into the Mackenzie River system, as well as on air quality and wildlife.

• Boreal Forest and Wetlands. A major impact of oil sands development is fragmentation of boreal forests. Boreal ecosystems are habitat for many species of wildlife, support the highest diversity of bird species in North America, and are valuable in the context of global climate change as a reservoir for storage of carbon. The loss of wetlands has several consequences because they provide habitat for rare plants and wildlife, regulate surface and groundwater flow through retaining snowmelt and summer storm flows, recharge aquifers, and serve as natural filters, removing contaminants from waters that flow through them.
• Athabasca River. Aquatic systems are affected by draining or removing wetlands, dewatering aquifers, withdrawing water from the Athabasca River, and storing tailings. Given the demand for water for oil sands production, large quantities of water are removed from the Athabasca River. Such withdrawals pose a threat to the Peace–Athabasca Delta, which requires minimum flows from the river as well as natural fluctuations. The river supports fish species that are vulnerable if flows drop below their minimum needs,
• Air Quality. Development of the oil sands is a major contributor to air pollution emissions in Alberta, producing 5 per cent of Canada’s total GHG emissions and are the fastest-growing source. Oil sands operations also are one of the largest sources of anthropogenic secondary organic aerosols in North America. Open-pit mining and oil sands processing, along with in situ extraction, and processing and bitumen upgrading, have been identified as responsible for significant primary particulate matter (PM) along with secondary aerosol formation.
• On 28 April 2008, ducks landed on a 12-km² tailings pond operated by Syncrude Canada in association with its oil sands operations, and 1,600 died. Photos of the oil-covered ducks quickly appeared in the global media, generating criticism, claiming the environmental costs of extraction from the oil sands were too high.
  (see “Environmental Impacts”)

In 2012, the federal and Alberta governments stated a joint plan for monitoring the oil sands would be developed. Initial work occurred between 2012 and 2015, with the intent to create “a scientifically credible, integrated approach to environmental monitoring, including an improved understanding of how the different types of impacts—on air, water, land, and biodiversity—affect one another”

The two governments stated that the extraction of oil sands creates two basic kinds of environmental impacts: release of contaminants (from industrial stacks, open mine faces, tailings ponds) with potentially harmful effects, and direct disturbance of the environment. Both need to be monitored in an integrated manner since they can interact to cause cumulative effects.

Three annual reports were published, for 2012–2013, 2013–2014, and 2014–2015. in December 2013, Alberta created the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) which became the provincial lead for oil sands monitoring. It was also reported that engagement was being facilitated with Indigenous peoples, industry, scientists, and stakeholders. However, after the first three years, the minister of the Environment, Shannon Phillips, announced that AEMERA would be closed because it was a “failed experiment” – expensive, ineffectively coordinated, and struggled due to bureaucratic infighting.

(see “Environmental monitoring and assessment”)

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) describes an adaptive phased management approach as involving (1) centralized storage of used nuclear fuel in a deep underground depository; (2) a series of steps and decision points, adapted as learning occurs; (3) people and communities having opportunity to be involved throughout the process; (4) long-term stewardship through ongoing monitoring of used fuels; (5) capacity to retrieve and remove the used waste to take advantage of new technologies; and (6) sufficient long-term funding to support long-term care of the fuel.

(see “Management of Used Nuclear Fuel”)

Chapman’s considerations are as follows:

• Occurrence. Many energy sources are confined to specific environments and locations and are only available at other locations when transport systems exist. Even physically present sources may not actually be available because of technical, economic, or other constraints.
• Transferability. The distance over which an energy source may be transported is a function of its physical form, energy content, and transport technology.
• Energy content. This is the amount of usable energy by weight or volume of a given source. Low-energy-content sources are inadequate when demand is large and spatially concentrated.
• Reliability. Uninterrupted availability gives one source an advantage over one that is intermittent.
• Storability. To meet interruptions of supply or peaks of demand, a source that can be stored has an advantage over one that cannot.
• Flexibility. The greater the variety of end uses to which a given source or form may be put, the more desirable it is.
• Safety and impact. Sources that may be produced or used with low risk to human health and the environment will be preferred over less benign sources.
• Cleanliness and convenience. The cleaner and more convenient source will be preferred over the dirty and the cumbersome.
• Price. The less expensive source or form will be preferred over the more expensive.
  (see Box 13.1)

In 2019, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported on its audit of monitoring environmental impacts of mining to the Canadian Parliament. It was noted that while the mining industry in Canada generates about 3 per cent of the gross domestic product, mining companies need to be managed to avoid negative impacts on fish and their habitat.

In the audit, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (2019) examined how effectively the federal departments of Environment and Climate Change, and Fisheries and Oceans protect fish and their habitat from mining effluent at active mine sites under both the Fisheries Act and the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations.

The audit determines that Environment and Climate Change’s practices do protect fish and their habitat from metal mining effluent. However, opportunities for improvement were noted. Fisheries and Oceans needs to improve monitoring such plans to ensure that they are implemented, on-site inspections are significantly less frequent in Ontario than in other regions, reporting on mine site compliance with requirements is incomplete, no comprehensive risk analysis to prioritize inspections of non-metal mines has been done.

Environment and Climate Change published assessments of the effects of metal mining effluent on the environment, which were summarized at a national level. However, mine sites are not identified by name, preventing specific communities from determining if mining effluent affected fish and their habitat locally.
(see “Monitoring Environmental Impacts of Mining”)