LAKELAND – Pathways Alliance continues to press forward with its $16 billion carbon capture and storage (CCS) project as some groups express continued concerns over the potential impact of the project.
Pathways plans to construct a major carbon capture and storage system line connecting a carbon storage hub in Cold Lake to oil sands facilities in the Fort McMurray, Christina Lake and Cold Lake regions. Its primary objective is the decarbonization of the oil and gas industry by reaching net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050.
“Pathways Alliance continues to advance the Foundational CCS project and has made great progress this year,” said Kendall Dilling, president of Pathways Alliance, in a Dec. 12 statement to Lakeland This Week.
Regulatory applications, which began in the first quarter of 2024, for a CO2 transportation network, including a 400+ km main pipeline and 250+ km connecting lines, are ongoing, with design and front-end engineering expected to finish by the end of the year, said Dilling.
“The oil sands industry is a key economic driver for Alberta and Canada contributing billions to the economy annually while helping to provide a secure source of energy here and to the world,” he said
Citing an April 2023 study by Nichols Applied Management, Dilling said construction of the project is estimated to take five to seven years and will provide over 129,000 full-time jobs.
“We’re working with governments to obtain sufficient levels of fiscal support and required regulatory approvals that will be necessary to make this project a reality,” he said.
Still, the project continues to face questions and skepticism.
On Nov. 28, eight First Nations in Alberta sent a letter to Minister Steven Guilbeault requesting that Pathways' project be designated under the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA).
A project designated under the IAA means the federal government has to step in to oversee the potential impacts on areas including, but not limited to, Indigenous rights and communities, the environment, or health and safety.
Previously, Ecojustice, an environmental law charity group, requested the Alberta government and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) order an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the project as a whole, rather than in pieces.
Under the current oil and gas regulatory framework, AER said they treat each component of a CCS project - like pipelines, facilities, and wells - as separate applications.
“Normally, if an environmental impact assessment report is required it would be filed and considered together with filed applications,” said Coral Hulse, AER spokesperson in a May 2024 statement to Lakeland This Week. This means if an EIA report is required for one of Pathways’ applications for example, a decision on their other applications would not be made until the EIA report is completed.
But the November 2024 letter to Guilbeault argues that Alberta’s regulatory process is fragmented, leading to a lack of comprehensive environmental assessment for the project as a whole.
“This is a massive and unprecedented project. It engages multiple areas of federal jurisdiction as contemplated by the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c. 28, with real risks of non-negligible adverse effects,” reads the letter.
Pathways Alliance said it is “reviewing the request and will respond to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.”
St. Paul
In St. Paul, where a portion of the Pathways network is proposed to be located, some residents continue to express “growing concern” about the project – seeking more communication from Pathways.
Amil Shapka, a member No to C02, a local group that has been speaking against the project, said, “There actually may be more concerns than we had before.”
“There’s been no community engagement or community follow up from Pathways,” all the while residents receive more information speaking to the disadvantages and against viability of CCS technology, he said.
“There's more evidence suggesting that it doesn't work,” said Shapka. He also expected Pathways to have been more proactive with its approach to addressing inquiries.
“We were basically saying we were open minded. So, convince us. Give us the evidence. But nobody's convinced us yet. All the while all the other information make us more hesitant,” said Shapka. “It's going to be a harder sell from now on.”
He said No to C02 will remain on watch to see Pathways’ next move.
Penny Fox, a St. Paul area resident who has previously expressed her concerns regarding one of the proposed project’s line’s proximity to her property, wants to know what the rights of landowners are.
“Can they say no, or can't they say no?” she questioned, before expressing a similar sentiment as Shapka.
“There is a lack of transparency from Pathways,” she said, explaining residents want to fully understand the effects of the project – both the ups and downs. “If we knew those two things exactly, a lot of people would either sleep easier or maybe not sleep easy, but at least that would answer those questions.”
Asked what Pathways could do to earn the trust of people who may not yet be convinced of the project, she said, “I think that’s easy.”
“I think they have to have open dialogue,” and start talking to municipalities including the County and the Town of St. Paul, she said. “They have to be present in community, so that we get to know who they are and understand what it is that they want to do here.”
“They keep saying it's proposed . . . but our fear is that once it gets past the [proposal] stage and goes through the action stage – then it’s too late for us to have those discussions. To change anything,” said Fox.