Oil and gas activity can have a wide range of impacts on natural ecosystems, from the initial exploration stage, through development, production and decommissioning of infrastructure.

Oil and gas wells, pumping stations, roads, pipelines and collecting systems all have a substantial footprint, and so a clear and open lifetime planning system is vital to ensure avoidance of sensitive ecosystems.

Introduction
Impacts
History
Archive
Other Areas

Prairie Bluff, Castle (N. Douglas)

Moose Mountain well, Kananaskis (N. Douglas)

According to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, oil and gas well reclamation is progressing at a much slower rate than well abandonment. This is resulting in a buildup of uncertified wells. On average, between 2002 and 2011, 14,227 wells were drilled per year, 4,111 were abandoned and 1,682 certified. This indicates that over the last 10 years, the certification rate has been approximately 40.9 per cent of the abandonment rate (Oil and Gas Reclamation, Alberta ESRD, March 2012)

Position

Alberta Wilderness Association believes that hydrocarbon exploration and development should be regulated in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of wilderness values. There is a fundamental need for the maintenance of wilderness that is free of industrial incursion. Outside of such areas, exploration and development must be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.

Natural gas withdraws and consumes large amounts of water during extraction and energy production. The life cycle consumption and withdrawal based on input, plant, and cooling type is reported in the following table.

Input	Plant Type	Cooling Type	Consumption coefficient (L/kWh or m³/MWh)	Withdrawals coefficient (L/kWh or m³/MWh)	Percent consumption to withdrawal	Consumption for 1000 MW Plant (L/Year)	Withdrawals for 1000 MW Plant (L/Year)	Consumption Compared to # of Albertans Avg. Annual Use
Conventional gas/CBM	Cogeneration	Cooling Pond	0.31	0.67	46%	2,170,000,000	4,690,000,000	30,488
Shale Gas	Cogeneration	Cooling Pond	0.38	0.74	51%	2,660,000,000	5,180,000,000	37,373
Conventional gas/CBM	Cogeneration	Cooling Tower	0.32	0.62	52%	2,240,000,000	4,340,000,000	31,472
Shale Gas	Cogeneration	Cooling Tower	0.39	0.69	57%	2,730,000,000	4,830,000,000	38,356
Conventional gas/CBM	Cogeneration	Dry Cooling	0.07	0.1	70%	490,000,000	700,000,000	6,884
Shale Gas	Cogeneration	Dry Cooling	0.14	0.17	82%	980,000,000	1,190,000,000	13,769
Conventional gas/CBM	Cogeneration	Once Through	0.23	14.66	2%	1,610,000,000	102,620,000,000	22,620
Shale Gas	Cogeneration	Once Through	0.3	14.73	2%	2,100,000,000	103,110,000,000	29,505
Conventional gas/CBM	NG Combined Cycle	Cooling Pond	0.72	1.15	63%	5,012,000,000	8,022,000,000	70,418
Shale Gas	NG Combined Cycle	Cooling Pond	0.8	1.23	65%	5,596,000,000	8,606,000,000	78,623
Conventional gas/CBM	NG Combined Cycle	Cooling Tower	0.69	1.02	68%	4,802,000,000	7,112,000,000	67,468
Shale Gas	NG Combined Cycle	Cooling Tower	0.77	1.1	70%	5,386,000,000	7,696,000,000	75,673
Conventional gas/CBM	NG Combined Cycle	Dry Cooling	0.12	0.15	80%	833,000,000	1,064,000,000	11,704
Shale Gas	NG Combined Cycle	Dry Cooling	0.2	0.24	83%	1,417,000,000	1,648,000,000	19,909
Conventional gas/CBM	NG Combined Cycle	Once Through	0.42	40.85	1%	2,912,000,000	285,922,000,000	40,913
Shale Gas	NG Combined Cycle	Once Through	0.5	40.93	1%	3,496,000,000	286,506,000,000	49,118
Conventional gas/CBM	Single/simple Cycle		0.17	0.46	37%	1,218,000,000	3,248,000,000	17,113
Shale Gas	Single/simple Cycle		0.3	0.59	51%	2,093,000,000	4,123,000,000	29,406
Conventional gas/CBM	Steam Cycle	Cooling Pond	1.86	2.33	80%	13,033,000,000	16,323,000,000	183,112
Shale Gas	Steam Cycle	Cooling Pond	2.01	2.48	81%	14,094,000,000	17,384,000,000	198,019
Conventional gas/CBM	Steam Cycle	Cooling Tower	2.42	2.98	81%	16,953,000,000	20,873,000,000	238,188
Shale Gas	Steam Cycle	Cooling Tower	2.57	3.13	82%	18,014,000,000	21,934,000,000	253,094
Conventional gas/CBM	Steam Cycle	Dry Cooling	0.33	0.39	85%	2,337,000,000	2,729,000,000	32,835
Shale Gas	Steam Cycle	Dry Cooling	0.49	0.54	91%	3,398,000,000	3,790,000,000	47,741
Conventional gas/CBM	Steam Cycle	Once Through	1.27	138.39	1%	8,903,000,000	968,743,000,000	125,086
Shale Gas	Steam Cycle	Once Through	1.42	138.54	1%	9,964,000,000	969,804,000,000	139,993
Note: Annual withdrawal and consumption for a 1000 MW plant are calculated with a capacity factor of 80 %, which assumes the plant runs for 7000 hrs in a year. Average Albertan consumption is assumed to be 71,175 L per year, based on Stats Canada’s Average daily litres of water used per capita in residential sector
Table Source: Ali, B. & Kumar, A. 2015 Development of life cycle water footprints for gas-fired power generation technologies. Energy Conversion and Management, 110, 386 – 396

2020

In February, AWA learned that Alberta-based Seven Generations Energy was the first Canadian natural gas producer to receive Equitable Origins’ (EO) certification to the EO100 standard. AWA has since engaged with Equitable Origins certifiers to support a sound application of the biodiversity provisions of their oil and gas certification, which we believe could help improve energy industry land-use practices. Since June, AWA has engaged directly with Seven Generations Energy around biodiversity concerns and opportunities in its Kakwa region lease holdings.

In early April, AWA voiced concerns about Alberta’s March 31 decision to suspend most energy industry environmental compliance reporting requirements. We were unconvinced that this was a pandemic safety-related measure since all data gathering and record-keeping requirements remained. We joined First Nations and other ENGOs in raising concerns when Alberta further suspended most environmental monitoring requirements in late April and early May; this occurred at a time when other economic activities were re-opening with pandemic safety measures in place. Although reporting and monitoring resumed in July 2020, AWA remains concerned about the interruption of compliance reporting and loss of data collection without transparent justification.

August 26, 2011

Oil and Gas

May 25, 2010

News Release: Suffield Coalition Concerned About Delay in Government Response. National Wildlife Areas Needed to Help Fight Extinction

The Suffield Coalition today expressed concern about the failure by the Government of Canada to…

March 12, 2010

Oil and gas activity can have a wide range of impacts on natural ecosystems, from the initial exploration stage, through development, production and decommissioning of infrastructure.

Position

2020

AWA News Release: Federal Government Writes Off Alberta Caribou- War on Wolves Goes National

ERCB OKs Another Sour Gas Well in the Castle… Sort of

Anthropogenic and Fire Disturbances in Woodland Caribou Herd Ranges in the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan Area

Kananaskis Country Receives Temporary Reprieve from Sour Gas Development

Castle Area Forest Land Use Zone: Linear Disturbances, Access Densities and Grizzly Bear Habitat Security Areas

AWA Opposition to ERCB Proposals to Increase Oil and Gas well Spacing

News Release: Suffield Coalition Concerned About Delay in Government Response. National Wildlife Areas Needed to Help Fight Extinction

News Release: Suffield National Wildlife Area – Conservation Makes Economic Sense

Shell Reaffirms its Position on Protection in the Castle

“Dirty Gas” in Rumsey Natural Area

Help Save Suffield

Are Oil and Gas Development and Conservation of Rough Fescue Prairie Compatible?