:
My role within the Boreal Initiative is largely around the corporate sector outreach, and I've spent a good part of the last number of months back and forth to Calgary, working with energy sector companies, trying to work out some areas of common interest and address areas of common concern. So we look forward to this committee and its work as an important contribution to what sustainability means and how Canadians can benefit most broadly through the work of the oil sands--and to address the risks that they pose.
We try to get behind real integrated solutions in the work that we do. The forest companies we work with have over 42 million acres under Forest Stewardship Council certification, which is a world-leading factor for responsible forest management. Our first nations partners are shaping land use plans and balancing protection with the opportunity for sustainable resource development. We work with a pretty broad range of environment groups that are focused on ensuring that we have some long-term sustainability within today's economic development opportunities. We have MOUs with governments, and our partnerships tend to span the whole spectrum, in true Canadian fashion.
We want to talk about the boreal today in a bit more of a global context, to take a step back from the regional impacts and really look at this. The inception of the Boreal Initiative came from a realization that there are only three countries on earth today that are home to over 70% of the remaining tracks of intact forest.
Brazil, Russia, and Canada are fortunate enough to be home to that forest, and Canada is clearly the country that stands out in the best position to take a real, stable, sustainable approach to the management of that forest and that landscape. In fact, we have a global responsibility with the boreal, and the oil sands play a big role in the shaping of the future of that boreal region.
Over a billion acres spanning 58% of our land mass, the boreal stretches from Newfoundland to the Yukon. It's not only of fundamental importance ecologically, but as you know, 600 aboriginal communities also make their home and make their living there. We understand and appreciate that it's an economic engine for communities and for the larger nation, and we want to balance development with land protection.
Scientists are calling for large-scale land protection to maintain wildlife and other ecological values across the landscape. There are some areas in the boreal where there's a need for such protection at a very critical and urgent level. Woodland caribou, for example, are very sensitive to these current disturbances that are occurring across the boreal, and they are clearly a population that is in decline, particularly in Alberta. Unless critical habitat is protected and closed to industrial development in some parts of this range, this already threatened species may be extirpated from much of its former range.
Clearly, the oil sands extraction will transform a significant portion of the boreal region. Estimates are in the order of 150,000 square kilometres in total. Given that we are on the cusp of new expansions, we're supporting a growing chorus of interests that are calling for a more comprehensive, integrated review of the pace and the scale of oil sands development. It is time for a sober second thought to look at the situation as it has developed to date, to make some significant changes to better balance and integrate the environmental concerns with development and aboriginal interests as we move ahead.
As I mentioned, we'd like to note here that Suncor is a member of the Boreal Leadership Council and a signatory to the “Boreal Forest Conservation Framework”. We work closely with them on several issues. We want to underscore that we will not be speaking for them today. They presented here earlier. We are in constant contact and discussion with them, but these will be the views of the Boreal Initiative.
Another point of context for the oil sands is clearly the Mackenzie watershed in which it is situated. The watershed itself spans most of the Northwest Territories, the northern half of Alberta, and portions of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon.
Our recommendations to you focus on remedies within this larger watershed context, as the impacts of oil sands development are and will be felt there. I don't know if you've seen the papers today, but the Deninu K'ue from Fort Resolution, 600 kilometres north of some of the oil sands development, have just formally put notice of their concerns as to where water will come from and how it may affect their interests in the long term.
Due to the size and intensity of oil sands extraction, the success of actions to mitigate the impact will have a huge impact on the larger integrity of the larger watershed. It also has impacts on our ability to fulfill international agreements and how we will be perceived internationally. Already, the oil sands region is recognized by the United Nations environment program as one of the 100 top world hot spots of environmental change.
There's no question that the oil sands development will dramatically reduce the natural capital—that is, the habitat, wildlife, and water integrity—of the region. Our boreal ecosystems have taken thousands of years to develop, and their removal through this type of mining is essentially irreversible. It may be mitigable, but it will be a different landscape, an altered landscape, and the ecological processes such as hydrology and carbon storage will be fundamentally changed and need to be carefully considered, both in terms of their implementation and their mitigation.
The SAGD will also transform the regional landscape. It will create much larger footprint impact than the mining, as you well know. The infrastructure of roads, pipelines, well pads, and processing facilities will have an impact on ecological integrity, which we need to account for, and of particular concern for us is the impact it will have on woodland caribou.
Given these intense and large-scale impacts, conservation offsets are a primary opportunity and necessity that will be required to maintain the ecological integrity in the broader Mackenzie region. A key component of the conservation offsets will be protected areas. Protected areas are needed for a variety of reasons, but to sustain regional ecological processes, to protect representative examples of native ecological communities, and to maintain native biodiversity. If properly selected, protected areas can act as benchmarks for sustainable development and sustainable management strategies. Protected areas have been identified by conservation organizations, first nations, and industry.
The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society has identified potential sites within the oil sands region that have high ecological value and minimal conflict with petroleum resources. The largest forest company in the region, Al-Pac, is exploring how they can move forward on this within their licensed area. We see this as being fundamentally important to the overall development project. Protected areas proposed by the Deh Cho First Nations within their land use plan and by local communities up and down the valley under the NWT protected areas strategy present other opportunities that we see as integrally linked with the conservation offsets for oil sands development.
Therefore, we recommend that the committee support the advancement of conservation offsets through protected areas in the region around the oil sands themselves and in the broader Mackenzie watershed.
The second area we want to touch on is the issue of ecosystem services currently provided by the area and how these will be affected. We worked with the Pembina Institute to do a report on ecosystem valuation in the area of the oil sands. For those of you who may want it, I have a report called Counting Canada's Natural Capital. It has an interesting piece done by Mark Anielski from the Pembina Institute.
They estimated the non-market value of boreal ecosystem services at about $93 billion a year. Highest values among those are largely water filtering, flood regulation, carbon sequestration and storage, and pest control. The forest lands and peat lands contain an estimated 67 billion tonnes of carbon, worth an estimated $3.7 trillion.
Due to the energy intensity of oil sands production, they are expected to be the largest single contributor of greenhouse gas emissions growth and could be responsible for half the projected growth of Canada's emissions between 2003 and 2010. Managing these emissions is therefore an essential component of our greenhouse gas emissions strategy nationally.
Improved use of existing technology is certainly part of what is needed to achieve the goal, but we need to understand that Canada's forests are the world’s largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon. They are vital to the world’s response to climate change. To mitigate the overall impacts on the boreal forest, we need to put incentives in place to allow companies to invest in forest conservation that stores carbon to offset emissions.
There's a fundamental role for the federal government to play, along with provincial governments, in making this incentive real for companies. These types of incentives range from both market-based carbon trading systems to an incentive fund for carbon-intensive conservation. We recommend that the committee support the Pembina Institute’s proposal that the oil sands become carbon neutral by 2020 and that the government support incentives to preserve forest carbon as part of the strategy.
Finally, oil sands extraction is very water-intensive, as you all know. There has been much discussion throughout your hearings on the amount of water required and the water quality issues that have been related there, so I won't belabour that point. We know that anywhere from two to five barrels of water are required for every barrel of oil produced, and that the oil sands account for some 65% of the total amount of water diverted from the Athabasca River. This volume is expected to increase over coming years. The impacts on fish habitat and the integrity of the Peace–Athabasca Delta are significant.
Given that the water is not returned to the watershed but is instead stored in tailings ponds that require decades to reclaim—and we'll be hearing more about the reclamation efforts there—it is understood that there are a number of uncertainties and a long-term risk of water contamination unless we manage those lands and that water very carefully. It's clear that we don't understand as much as we need to understand on the water removal and the impact of that on the ecosystem, nor do we understand the risks presented by such toxins as the polyaromatic hydrocarbons.
Local communities downstream are currently very concerned and may be dramatically affected by changes in both the quality and quantity of water. They are calling for a better understanding of the impacts of the development on the water. This is a critical component of a lasting and just solution to this element of development.
The understanding is needed by all components of the region’s natural capital. The development of this knowledge would allow governments to consider ecological and socio-economic costs when making regional land use decisions.
The Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta are calling for a strategic-level environmental assessment of the full range of direct impacts and cumulative effects from present and future oil sands and heavy oil projects. Such an approach would provide an opportunity for the first comprehensive review of the current and projected footprint of these developments, and would allow decision-makers to consider a full range of impacts on a regional scale, rather than on a more limited project-by-project basis, which is inefficient for companies in many respects and often misses some of the core issues that could benefit all parties involved. Assessment and planning in this context should take into account both the pace and scale of proposed developments, and critical thresholds to the limits to growth, such as ensuring that the quantity of water used in oil extraction does not exceed a level that would impair ecosystem function or put communities at risk.
Other priorities for consideration within the strategic environmental assessment could include evaluations of impacts of oil sands development on fish habitat in the Athabasca River; impacts of road development in the oil sands region on both fish and wildlife; threats to the ecological integrity of the Peace–Athabasca Delta in Wood Buffalo National Park; and threats to wildlife, including caribou, which are already suffering a precipitous decline, and moose, which is a key species and the basis of livelihood for local first nations.
We recommend that the committee support the initiation of a strategic environmental impact assessment of the full range of direct and cumulative effects on the present and proposed oil sands and heavy oil projects within the Mackenzie Delta.
The time is ripe for new approaches that protect ecosystems and cultures and promote sustainable economies, which can even create a global competitive edge for Canadian companies and communities. The Canadian boreal region gives us a chance to think differently, partner differently, and do business differently. The Boreal Initiative is committed to working in this exact way and believes that solutions are at hand if we take the right approach and take the time now to get it right.
Thank you very much.
:
Good afternoon. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's a real pleasure to speak with you today on the topic of reclamation of site closure for oil sands mines.
My perspective is that of a land reclamation practitioner. As the manager, land and environment, at Syncrude, I work with a team of technical specialists who are actively rebuilding the landscape at Syncrude's oil sands mining operations. This year to date, our team has completed shaping and placement of the final reclamation material cover on something over 300 hectares of land--that's a little over one square mile--and has planted over half a million tree and shrub seedlings. Equally important, we've invested over $1.5 million in reclamation research.
From that perspective of active field execution of progressive reclamation, I will comment on some of our key challenges and on where our reclamation program is headed. I'm hoping these comments will be helpful to the committee in its deliberations.
The very first comment I must make—the third page in the handout—is to recognize the obvious, that oil sand mining disturbs the land, that it requires clearing of the previous existing boreal forest, stripping off of the overburden, which is that layer of material that overlies the oil sand, and then excavating the oil sands for processing. Given recognition that we do disturb the land, my industry works to minimize the footprint of our operations and to minimize the area affected at each point in time, which we accomplish through progressive reclamation. However, having disturbed the land, we have indeed assumed clear legal obligations and, I may say, equally clear social obligations to reclaim the land to acceptable standards.
On page 5 of the handout, I have included the Alberta law that applies the concept of capability and requires post-closure landscape to have equivalent capability to pre-disturbance landscape. We also, of course, must satisfy other provincial statutes and federal statutes, the most prominent of which would be the Fisheries Act, provisions around fish habitat and the health of fisheries.
Page 6 of the handout is our closure vision. To help us focus on our challenge, as land reclamation practitioners we have crafted a vision for the post-closure landscape for the landscape we will leave behind for the people who will be living in the Wood Buffalo region after we're finished our work and gone. We recognize that there will be people, particularly aboriginal communities, who will be looking for that landscape to continue to support their existence in the region. In our vision, we speak of a mosaic of landscape elements yielding a landscape that will be useful, a landscape that will be robust and resilient enough to mature into harmony with the surrounding boreal forest.
Page 7 is a pictorial display of that vision. But perhaps most important, page 8 of the handout is a block of reclaimed land that we can point to and say that this is our vision. It's almost a shame the committee was visiting Fort McMurray in a winter season; we love to show the reclaimed land when it's green and thriving.
The photograph on page 8 shows a portion of the Syncrude Mildred Lake base mine, now a reclaimed mosaic of forest, grasslands, and wetlands. Everything to the right of the road in this photo was a mine pit about 60 metres deep, now back-filled with the overburden material and reclaimed.
With that as a reference of our vision, turning to the process of land reclamation, page 9 displays the core concepts behind land reclamation. As already noted, the first thing we do, at time zero, is disturb the land, reducing the land capability for other uses to effectively zero. From that point through time, we re-establish equivalent but not identical capability. The graph illustrates the concept of multiple possible paths to equivalent capability, comparatively rapidly or comparatively slowly.
The graph also illustrates the three steps in land reclamation. First, we establish the final shape to each land form, each hill and valley. Second, we place the top layer of material selected for its suitability to evolve into future soil horizons. Third, we give the development of the future community of plants and animals a start through planting a few species of trees and shrubs.
I must stress that behind each of these activities there resides considerable science and experience, but at the end of the day, these are the things we do when we speak of land reclamation. These are the physical activities available to us.
On page 10, I've included a block flow diagram of the same concept, really only to emphasize the first block on the top-left corner. It is our responsibility to plan for closure of our site to ensure that there is a viable path through from where we are today to final closure of the site. Today could be at any point. At any point there must be a viable path through to the end from where we are today. If there is no such path, we have no right to disturb the land.
Syncrude and other oil sands operators have defined a path, a plan for reclamation and closure of each of our sites. We've documented a sequence of activities we're going to undertake and the standard practices and the technologies we will apply. In defining those standard practices and those sequences of activities, we are certainly cognizant of the many challenges inherent in land reclamation in general and reclamation of oil sands mines in particular.
On page 11, I've listed a few of the most important considerations driving our work. We are developing a landscape and indeed individual land forms large enough that we must anticipate surface runoff and hence provide a dendritic pattern of valleys and creeks, returning to natural areas surrounding our operation to learn what nature requires in the way of drainage systems and drainage patterns. Second, we must cope with salts naturally present in both the overburdened layer and in the oil sands ore itself, all of which will be present in the new landscape. We must ensure that soil and water quality remain acceptable. Third, we must anticipate and accommodate the initial toxicity of organic compounds occurring naturally in the oil sands ore and washed out of the ore during processing. Fortunately, as these are natural compounds, they are readily broken down by sunlight and by bacteria, and we're confident we can meet the challenge presented by this initial toxicity.
Page 12 illustrates the first stage of the reclamation process: shaping of the land, mainly to accommodate surface runoff with acceptable rates of long-term erosion. As an aside, the upper-right third of this image is also reclaimed land--tailings sand reclaimed to pasture and forest.
The next step is selection of the best materials available in the landscape, ahead of mining, to form the future soil. Ideally, the very surface materials, the forest floor layer containing seeds and roots, would be transferred directly to the reclamation site to maximize rapid establishment and diversity of plant communities.
On page 13, the left-hand photo shows an area where, in advance of mining, the very surface layer has been scraped up into piles for loading into trucks. The right-hand photo shows the placement of the first lift of reclamation material. In this case, it's an 80-centimetre lift of clay loam material. The final lift will be the forest floor material from the windows on the left photo.
Page 14 shows in the foreground an overburdened land form soon after placement of the two lifts of reclamation material, but I actually wanted to draw your attention to the centre of the photo to illustrate this water management challenge, where on top of an emerging hill of constructive overburden there's a patch of green, a patch of reclaimed land. That's right in the middle of the photo. Heading off to the left from the side of that hill is a drainage feature, a future valley. By natural analog, by our design tools for surface drainage, the size and slope of this land form would in nature have a network of valleys, so we've anticipated that and provided that. Page 15 shows two close-up views of that particular drainage feature.
In summary then, Syncrude has the tools and practices to successfully reshape and revegetate land forms built up from overburden. Shown on page 16 is an example of a forest stand and an example of a grassland and wetland complex. On page 17 there is a land form built of tailings sand.
So with that as groundwork on what reclamation is and how we execute it, on page 18 we turn to perhaps the most challenging and least understood aspect of our work, and that is the soft character of some of our tailings materials. The water is slow to drain, and the material stays soft for a period of time. I've included a photo of a geotechnical engineer demonstrating the soft nature of the material we call composite tailings.
Given that challenge, Syncrude plans to apply two approaches to management of these soft materials. On page 19, I have included a very busy display of one of those technologies. I apologize for that. I did it with the intention of emphasizing that there is a lot of technology and content applied to our final landscape. It's the product of a lot of research and development. I'm not going to lead you through every component of that drawing.
In essence, the figure at the bottom shows a slice through a deposit of composite tailings. On top of that is a layer of stronger material, which is tailing sand. In turn, on top of that is a layer of select reclamation material supporting a vegetation community. In the upper right is a cross-section through the same piece of landscape in the other direction, which shows that we actually have a series of hummocks and swales in mind--high spots and low spots. The purpose of that is to ensure adequate drainage of the precipitation and a water table far enough below the surface of the ground that we'll have a rooting zone for trees. It all comes together in the upper left of the drawing. It's a landscape with a series of ridges that is supporting stands of trees. Between the ridges is a series of comparatively wet swales with vegetation such as willows and cattails. At the low parts of the landscape are larger wetlands communities.
Page 20 speaks to some of the considerations around the water balance in a landscape: balance between precipitation, evaporation, and interflow through the land to a wetland in the low part of the landscape. It's very important that we understand all components of that water balance.
Many people wonder whether it's realistic to expect wetlands to establish themselves in the reclaimed landscape. On page 21 is an example of a wetland that evolved to an impressive level of diversity over a period of only four years. One critique of our land reclamation program--about the concept of land reclamation--is the observation that we, as a practitioner company, cannot dictate the exact type of wetland, or indeed the exact species composition of an upland stand of trees, over the long term. We agree with that critique. We strive to establish conditions that are sufficient to support diverse communities of plants and animals. We believe we succeed in that effort. However, as one of my colleagues observes, nature bats last. We provide a start, and then nature will evolve the community of vegetation that best suits each site.
Now, I mentioned two technologies for incorporating soft tailings in the final landscape. The second technology is a lake overlying, or capping, a deposit of soft tailings. That approach is displayed in simple terms on page 22.
Page 23 provides an aerial photograph of research facilities. Syncrude has completed over 20 years of research and demonstration of the lake-capping technology, reaching the stage of field skill test ponds in 1988--almost 20 years ago--and then the stage of a four-hectare demonstration pond in 1993. On the strength of that, we believe we have a good understanding of the issues involved with this technology and the behaviour of a lake system over a deposit of soft tailings. We are confident the full-scale commercial implementation of this approach, which is scheduled for 2012, will prove successful.
And in that vein--page 24--we cannot overemphasize the contribution of quality research in enhancing our reclamation standard practices.
Our preferred research execution strategy is to collaborate with the leading principal investigators from faculties at universities across Canada, thereby attracting top-quality graduate students, who then publish into the public domain work done to academic standards. In summer 2006, we hosted on our site over 30 research teams, teams of students from across Canada.
On slide 25, I've included some numbers. I won't take you through them. If you have questions, by all means please ask.
To summarize, at the Syncrude Mildred Lake site we are already reclaiming land more rapidly than we're disturbing land. We are drawing down the footprint of that site. At the pace we're currently reclaiming land, 260 hectares, about one square mile last year, we have about 50 years of work ahead of us. We have about 30 years of mining at that site, and after mining is finished, the reclamation has to be completed, perhaps another five or ten years' work. So it's a 35 or 40-year project. Working at the current pace, we'd get it done in 50 years. We really should pick up the pace a bit, but only a bit. We're pretty well where we ought to be.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize three points. First, we at Syncrude fully recognize that successful land reclamation is a precondition to our activities. If we cannot reclaim land, we have no right to disturb it. If we do not have a path through to finishing the job, we have no right to start. Second, land reclamation and site closure is a serious matter. It involves serious technology and experience--at Syncrude, over 40 years of research and 30 years of field execution. It involves serious money, serious effort, and commitment. Third, given those ingredients, we believe land reclamation works. We believe land reclamation site closure can be done, and we fully intend to do it.
I appreciate your attention and I look forward to answering your questions to the best of my ability. Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Friesen, Mr. Young, and Mr. Carlson, for being here.
You'll have to appreciate that those two presentations are a little overwhelming, even to this committee, which has had an opportunity--I'm speaking on my own behalf--to go up and see the scale of the development.
If I were to try to capture the essence of what has been presented today, it would be that from an environmentally determinist position, there are many questions with respect to the rate of development, the erosion of the capacity of the boreal forest to serve in its natural cycle as a potential for sequestration of carbon, and the potential of the ecosystems and the ground and surface waters to rejuvenate themselves. All of this is related to the rate of extraction and development, either by mining it or in situ. Both are intrusive and invasive to the extent that the rate of development appears to be out of sync, out of rhythm, with the capacity to rejuvenate.
Mr. Friesen, you have concentrated on the reclamation aspect of it, and I certainly respect very much what you have said in terms of your company's commitment. I have a related question. You said twice that if we have no such path, we have no right to start the development. That's the first thing, and you used that with respect to your closure and reclamation model. You also said that successful reclamation is a precondition, that we have no right to start if we can't satisfy the capacity to rejuvenate in the manner that you describe is there.
I guess the question is one of scale. We have a graph that shows the extent to which development has occurred. The amount of reclamation is in the lightly shaded part of the graph. You can see, Mr. Friesen, while you have testified...you admit that you've been a little slow at the beginning, that you could accelerate the reclamation issue.
That said, I have a question. I'd like Mr. Young, Mr. Carlson, and Mr. Friesen to reply, and I think the committee would be interested. We are concerned with respect to the individual development applications that you, Mr. Friesen, have indicated you wouldn't start if you didn't think that you could recoup, and we're also concerned about the cumulative effect.
Are those questions considered when an application under environmental assessment is made for the initial development of a site? Is it mandated that there's a test, Mr. Friesen, with respect to what you have said, that you wouldn't start a development if you didn't think you could place that back into the natural environment? Is that part of the environmental assessment process such that the public good could be protected in terms of both the development of that site and all of the implications with respect to reclamation, water, hydrology, and toxic impacts, and so on?
Thank you all for your presentations and for coming to the committee.
I want to follow up on the vein that was started. Mr. Friesen, you said that land reclamation was a precondition of development and that you shouldn't start if you can't put it back the way it was. I'm happy to hear that. When we visited the oil sands project, we flew over and drove by a reclaimed area. Even with snow on it, it looks pretty good. It's hard to tell it from the rest of the land.
I have some questions about what's in the soil, because it's tailing ponds, it's material that's been injected with detergents and chemicals, things to get the oil out, and then it's put back into the ground. I know it's settled out, but I want to know how much.
You say you do research and you spend about $500,000—you said half a million dollars—on research. Is that enough? What timeframe is that? How long a period of time is that money spent over? Is that $500,000 a year or in the whole project? What's left in the soil? I'm worried about what's in the plants, in the vegetation growing in the soil.
The other question I want to ask is to Mr. Young. You used the word “extirpated”. That means to destroy totally. So if something is destroyed totally, if vegetation or animals can't or will not come back to that area because it's changed drastically, it may look the same, but if there's something that won't grow there because of the change in the soil—it used to be a peat bog or it used to be a wetland, now because of the change in the soil, it no longer is—is that full reclamation? As I say, it looks good on the surface, but is there something down the road?
My other question--because I never get enough time to get them all in--is who's responsible in the end? I know the land is turned back to the government after you've satisfied your requirements to reclaim and you've monitored for a period of time. If we find after several years of growth that the animals and the vegetation aren't returning, aren't staying, or if things don't grow as they ought to, who is responsible for that?
Finally, with carbon sequestration--I recently read an article and I can't remember where it was now. They found the carbon that was pumped back into the ground made the vegetation grow faster, which I suppose is a good thing, but at the same time they found it increased the level of poison in the poison ivy. What are the effects on the vegetation?
Is the research money enough? Is there ongoing and...? That's a lot of questions. Thanks.
:
These are excellent questions, and very well expressed. I appreciate it; I'll try to do them justice.
First, with respect to the magnitude or quantum of research, Syncrude spent $1.5 million this year. Collectively, with other companies plus matching funding from NSERC, the scale of reclamation research in the oil sands today is about $5 million per year.
The nature of the research very much speaks to the concerns you've expressed. Is the soil quality sustainable, and in particular, is the land surface safe? Are there going to be things happening that result in a landscape that is not satisfactory in the sense of being safe for people and animals?
The way we approach that is through the concept of an instrumented watershed. The reclamation material—the top layer—when we first place it is natural. We harvest it from in front of mining and place it in the reclaimed areas. Then the question is, is it at risk of change? On day one it is in fact safe; that is known.
The concept of an instrumented watershed is a large enough patch of reclaimed land that we can understand the flows of water—surface water, subsurface water—and therefore the movement through the landscape of other things such as salts, or perhaps any contaminant that might be there. The intent is to confirm that our standard practices protect the soil layer. It all hinges on—you expressed it very well—the soil starting off satisfactory, and if the processes in the landscape are acceptable, then the long-term outcome will be acceptable.
Yes, it is a very long-term matter, so the question of custodial transfer back to the Crown and the timing of it and its completeness are important. We believe it will be a long time. We believe we will be documenting the behaviours of landscapes for many decades—for argument's sake, 50 to 100 years—before it's evident that the situation is acceptable.
Even there, it may not be a full custodial transfer; it may a custodial transfer supported with some ongoing funding or ongoing monitoring. As I say, we have about 30 years behind us. When I talk about 50 to 100 years, what I'm saying is that it could take another 20 years, or another 50 to 70 years, for us to fully demonstrate to the people of Alberta and the people of Canada that a custodial transfer back to the Crown is an acceptable risk for the public, for the people of Canada.
:
I take Syncrude's commitment at their word and I think they're doing their honest best, but your point about the fact that the scale is really without precedent is an important one. There are many players operating simultaneously in an environment that none of us know. The hydrology itself is an extraordinarily complex thing.
By the way, Ducks Unlimited has just recently done some pretty intensive work on hydrology that is bringing up a lot of very interesting, very surprising results that will be critical for long-term ecosystem viability. This is an experiment of global scale, and we need to treat it as such.
When you look at that through a compound of complexity with accelerating climate changes, as we've seen it, you're getting the ability to experiment with plants, and sometimes animals, over a very changing climatic environment as well, which is really a critical question when you're trying to establish new plant communities. What are the climatic parameters you're going to be working with in 50 years? We don't know. The assumptions will be constantly challenged, constantly overturned, and that's why I would say that the real answer to your question, from my perspective, is no, we don't know.
Can we manage it? The only way we can do that is by being very cautious and humble up front. So it means we have accountability built into the system that means that if something goes wrong, somebody has the feedback at a timely measure to know when it's going wrong, we know who is responsible for setting it right, and we know when we've hit thresholds, whether it's toxics, or habitat loss related to species, or whatever.
We need very critical, very firm lines of accountability. We need very clear feedback mechanisms, coming back from communities on health issues, coming in from fieldwork on ecological issues. And we need to have real thresholds driven by financial penalties and rewards and by regulatory mechanisms, because if we don't take it that seriously, we will be in deep trouble at the end of the day.
I think we have an experiment. We need to treat it as a vital and very dangerous experiment at some level, but it's a huge opportunity if we use the huge financial resources available to us to try to do the right thing.