Canada: How U.S. Protectionism And Elevated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Will Impact Demand For Oil From The Alberta Oil Sands (And How To Fight Back)

Copyright 2009, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP


Canada is blessed with extensive natural resources, including Alberta's vast oil sands reserves. The recoverable oil from the Alberta oil sands is estimated at 170-173 billion barrels, making Alberta's recoverable reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's1. The U.S. imports more oil from Canada than any other nation (approximately 2.512 million barrels of oil per day)2. As such, any changes that affect U.S. demand for Canadian oil, including oil sands oil, will have a dramatic effect on Canada's oil and gas industry.

This paper will address two recent U.S. enactments, the Energy Independence and Security Act3 ("EISA"), and the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard, together with the recently proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 20094 ("Clean Energy Act"). All of these enactments include constraints over greenhouse gas emissions, some of which are openly manifested as protectionist trade issues. If left unchallenged, these enactments will lead to decreased demand for oil sands oil. This paper will review means of challenging these enactments in the context of both protectionist trade measures and the uncertainty surrounding their use of the term 'life cycle' when referring to GHG emissions.

Section 526 of the EISA

The EISA was signed into law by President Bush in December 2007. Section 526 of the EISA is of particular interest to Canadian oil producers and continues to garner attention from U.S. legislators and the North American energy industry more than a year after it was passed. Section 526 of the EISA prohibits U.S. federal agencies from entering into any contract for the procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including fuel produced from non-conventional petroleum sources, unless the contract specifies that the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with such fuel are less than or equal to emissions from conventional petroleum resources.

Considerable discussion and debate with respect to the interpretation and application of section 526 had arisen both in Canada and the U.S. since the EISA became law. The drafters of the EISA have stated that section 526 was originally intended to prevent the U.S. Air Force from procuring coal-to-liquid fuels, which are estimated to produce almost double the GHG emissions of conventional fuels. Likewise, the Government of Canada has taken the position that a narrow interpretation of section 526 ought to be adopted (so as to exclude oil sands oil), and has also supported the position that oil sands oil is not non-conventional petroleum, but rather part of mainstream oil production.5

Despite this original intent, the wording of section 526 is of concern to oil sands producers. Notwithstanding the position of the Canadian government, oil sands oil is often characterized, and referred to, as non-conventional petroleum.

While section 526 may not have been aimed specifically at oil sands oil, such production may be caught by the wording of section 526. Mr. Henry Waxman, the current chair of the U.S. Congress' House Committee on Energy and Commerce and one of the drafters of section 526, has stated that oil sands oil is one of the fuels he would like to ban under section 526 as "the development and expanded use of these fuels could significantly exacerbate global warming".6 Even rhetoric from the proponents that were initially in favour of a restrictive interpretation of section 526 has changed in recent months. Many now acknowledge that "Section 526 of the (EISA) serves to prevent the Department of Defense from purchasing fuel from the Canadian Tar Sands where there is an estimated 180 billion barrels of oil."7

After it was enacted, several U.S. congressmen and senators voiced their concern regarding the potential impact that section 526 could have on the availability of a proximate, secure fuel supply. In March 2008, Texas Congressmen Jeb Hensarling and Mike Conway introduced legislation to repeal section 526, stating that "though short, this section – which raises concerns over national security, economic security and bureaucratic uncertainty – has powerful and harmful implications and needs to be repealed immediately." This legislation, and identical legislation introduced in the House of Representatives in April 2008 by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, failed to make it past their respective second readings in the House and the Senate.

In May 2008, an amendment to section 526 was included in the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill (Defense Bill) passed by the House of Representatives. This amendment would have enabled U.S. federal agencies, including the U.S. military, to purchase blended fuels containing non-conventional petroleum that are generally available in the marketplace. Since oil sands oil is not segregated from other petroleum within the supply chain, the amendment would essentially have made oil sands oil available for use by all federal agencies. The amendment was not included in the Defense Bill that was signed into law by President Bush on October 14, 2008.

More recently, in January 2009, two attempts were made to repeal section 526. The first attempt was made by Republican Congressman Phil Gringey of Georgia, who attempted to include a repeal of Section 526 in the House version of the economic recovery package. This amendment was not included in the version of the bill passed by the House. The second attempt was made by Republican Senator James Inhofe, who re-introduced his April 2008 legislation into the House of Representatives on January 21, 2009. Mr. Inhofe's legislation is currently under review by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Given the current republican minority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and given the current focus of the Obama administration, it seems unlikely that Mr. Inhofe's re-introduced legislation will fare better in the current political climate than it did in April 2008. There has been talk that Mr. Inhofe may also attempt to include a repeal of section 526 in this year's 2010 Defense Authorization Bill.

Business executives in the U.S. have also spoken out against section 526. A report issued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in November 2008, titled "A Transition Plan for Securing America's Energy Future"8, specifically includes oil sands oil in its proposal for supplying America's future energy needs. The report urges the President and Congress to "expand...production of fuels from oil shale, oil sands, unconventional natural gas and other frontier hydrocarbon fuels." and explicitly recommends that Congress repeal section 526.

Although oil sands oil continues to be purchased unhindered by the U.S. department of defense and other agencies, section 526 has impacted other areas of the U.S. military agenda. Recently, the U.S. Air Force abandoned a coal-to-liquids project at a Montana air base, apparently for fear of lawsuits based on section 526.9 There has been speculation that it may also abandon its coal-to-liquid program altogether for the same reason.

It remains to be seen if section 526 will ultimately be repealed. Despite powerful efforts to the contrary (primarily based on arguments relating to energy security), the section remains in force.

California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard ("LCFS")

In April 2009, California adopted a 2007 executive order from the California Governor dealing with LCFS. The standard takes into account the entire life cycle of the fuel in calculating GHG emissions.10 Such a standard requires fuel providers to ensure that the mix of fuels they sell intmarket meets, on average, a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e gram per unit of fuel energy sold. While such a standard does not prohibit fuel providers from purchasing fuel that contains oil sands oil, it may act as disincentive to the purchase of such fuels as providers would then be required to "offset" the higher GHG emissions associated with oil sands oil with the purchase of biofuels such as corn ethanol. Corn ethanol is more expensive than the energy equivalent amount of gasoline, but produces approximately 22% less GHG emissions on a life cycle basis.

The California LCFS requires all fuel sold in California to have 10% less carbon emissions compared to industry average by the year 2020. While the LCFS is specific to California, at least 13 other states and some provinces have indicated a willingness to adopt it.11

Clean Energy Act

The Clean Energy Act was released on March 31, 2009 by Congressman Henry Waxman and Congressman Edward Markey and has been called "the first legislative proposal for a radical shift in U.S. energy policy". The Clean Energy Act, also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, calls for national renewable energy and energy efficiency standards, establishes a single federal fuel-efficiency standard and a low-carbon fuel standard for biofuels, proposes a market-based emissions reduction program, and includes a global warming reduction program. The Clean Energy Act, including the allocation of emissions allowances, is currently being evaluated by Congress' Energy and Commerce Committee. The time-frame of the review is unknown but it is anticipated to be completed by the end of May.

The Clean Energy Act is separated into four parts, each with its own title. One title is "Reducing Global Warming Pollution", which calls for significant reductions to GHG emissions. It establishes a target of a 20% reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels in 2020, a 42% reduction in 2030 and an 83% cut by 2050. Although it refers to an emissions reduction program (i.e., a cap-and-trade system), it does not specifically address how to allocate emission trading allowances to various industries.12

The "Energy Efficiency" title of the Clean Energy Act calls for a new low-carbon transportation fuel standard to promote the development of biofuels and other "clean" transportation fuels. The low-carbon fuel standard in the Clean Energy Act is modeled after the California LCFS and could be expected to have a similar, although exponentially greater, effect on demand for oil sands oil.

The fourth title of the Clean Energy Act, "Transitioning to a Clean Energy Economy", is clearly protectionist. If passed, it will create additional costs for Canadian manufacturers and exporters. This part of the Act seeks to "ensure domestic competitiveness" of U.S. manufacturers vis-à-vis competitors in countries other than the U.S. and authorizes companies in energy-intensive sectors to receive "rebates" to compensate for additional costs incurred under the Clean Energy Act. It also allows the President to establish a "border adjustment" program which would require foreign manufacturers and importers to pay for special allowances to account for the carbon contained in U.S.-bound products.

It remains to be seen if the Clean Energy Act will maintain its current form or if it will re-emerge from review by the Energy and Commerce Committee with significant changes.

Currently, the Act has little or no Republican support and a number of lawmakers around the country have been critical of it, calling these goals unrealistic because the technology to meet them does not yet exist. Others are critical of the Clean Energy Act as it would increase energy taxes in the midst of a recession in the United States. Regardless of opposition to specific portions of the Clean Energy Act, there is considerable pressure on the U.S. to pass some type of climate change legislation before the next major international climate change conference scheduled to take place in Copenhagen in December 2009.13

Impact of the U.S. Enactments on Demand for Oil Sands Oil

At present, section 526 has little or no impact on the demand for oil sands oil. That is because the majority of oil sands oil is currently not used for motive fuel. That stated, if left unchallenged and if strictly enforced by the U.S. government, it could hinder future demand for any product that is destined for use as a motive fuel.

Similarly, California's LCFS presently poses little or no threat to oil sands oil because California consumes virtually no oil from Alberta. However, the expectation is that oil exports to that state will increase in the future. Indeed, the Honourable Mel Knight, Alberta Minister of Energy has gone on record as indicating that such a standard could have an effect on Alberta's bitumen future. "Does it have a possibility of a negative effect on Alberta's bitumen future? I would suggest I'd be very naïve if I thought anything other than 'yes' is the proper answer to that."14 Alternatively, similar provisions could be adopted by other states and provinces. If that occurs, it will certainly lead to decreased demand.

Unlike section 526 of the EISA and the California LCFS, the Clean Energy Act would be a law of general application in the U.S. It could result in the imposition of a universally applied LCFS as well as a border tax. If enacted, it is likely to have a much more dramatic and immediate impact on the demand for oil sands oil than the other two enactments.

Because the various U.S. enactments may eventually all lead to decreased oil sands demand, it is imperative that Canada, Alberta, and oil producers arm themselves with as much information as possible concerning the enactments. They can then use that information to challenge the enactments or lobby towards modification of such enactments.

Challenging the U.S. Enactments on the Basis of Trade Violations:

The intent of all of the above U.S. enactments is laudable. They all attempt to ensure a balanced playing field between US companies and companies located elsewhere that produce the same or similar products. While section 526 of the EISA and the California LCFS do not specifically refer to trade issues, because of their impact on companies and products beyond their borders, they have trade implications. The recently proposed Clean Energy Act addresses trade issues head-on and is clearly protectionist legislation.

As a result of the above trade impacts, all of the enactments need to be contrasted with, and interpreted under the auspices of, the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement ("NAFTA")15. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are all parties to NAFTA. NAFTA was crafted in part to ensure the unhindered trade of goods between all three countries. It contains provisions that prohibit governments in one country from enacting laws that discriminate against companies and products from another country on the basis of nationality or origin. Chapter 11 of NAFTA in particular attempts to achieve equal treatment of investors in accordance with the principles of international reciprocity. Four articles of Chapter 11 (Articles 1102, 1103, 1105 and 1110) may provide a means for Canadian oil and gas producers to challenge various provisions of the enactments.

Excerpts from those Articles include:

Article 1102: National Treatment

1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.

Article 1103: Most-Favored Nation Treatment

1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of a non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.

Article 1105: Minimum Standard of Treatment

1. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment in accordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.

Article 1110: Expropriation and Compensation

1. No Party may directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation of such an investment ("expropriation"), except:

(a) for a public purpose;

(b) on a non-discriminatory basis;

(c) in accordance with due process of law and Article 1105(1); and

(d) on payment of compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2 through 6.

Each of section 526 of the EISA, the California LCFS and parts of the Clean Energy Act must be reviewed in the context of protectionist trade measures and the above noted provisions of NAFTA. If it is determined that any or all of these legislative enactments deleteriously impact the demand for (and production of) oil sands oil, which production occurs in Canada, not the U.S., it may lead to a successful challenge based solely on trade issues. Accordingly, the enactments need to be closely scrutinized and their impact on oil sands development closely monitored. If the practical effect of the enactments is that they treat oil sands oil differently than other oil, they potentially amount to trade discrimination in violation of NAFTA – and possibly the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The potential for U.S. violation of NAFTA and the WTO has not been lost on Alberta. In a recent letter from Premier Ed Stelmach to Prime Minister Harper, Mr. Stelmach urged the Canadian government to adopt the following policy in its dialogue with the U.S.:

Canada's policy must guard against schemes that allow for non-reciprocal exemptions, subsidies that divert investment and subsequent industrial benefits to another country, or an unwieldy trading system that lacks full transparency and accountability or circumvents the normal rules, obligations and spirit of free trade under WTO and NAFTA treaties.16

Utilizing a trade issue may seem to be a novel approach to opposing U.S. GHG emissions enactments. However, it should serve as a reminder of how closely intertwined GHG emissions issues are to pure economic issues. GHG emissions can not and should not be considered in isolation. Rather, any laws relating to such emissions in any North American jurisdiction will be subject to scrutiny on the basis of trade, and consideration must always be given to ensuring that those laws are justifiable from a trade point of view or they will be challenged.

Challenging the Enactments Due to Uncertainty Surrounding their Use of the Term 'life cycle'

Each of section 526 of the EISA, the California LCFS and portions of the Clean Energy Act are predicated upon the measurement of the life cycle GHG emissions of products. Unfortunately little or no explanation is provided as to what is meant by the term 'life cycle' for example it is unclear if carbon capture and storage ("CCS") activities can be considered in a life cycle analysis. This requires clarity, especially when both Alberta and Canada have placed so much emphasis on CCS as they move forward in this carbon-constrained economy.17

The term 'life cycle' is also problematic. There are also various types of life cycles that can be analyzed. Life cycle emissions may only refer to emissions related to oil production. Alternatively, they may refer to emissions associated with taking oil from the well to the refinery ("WTR") or from the well to the motor vehicle where the fuel is consumed, i.e. well-to-wheel ("WTW"). When it is considered that upwards of 60-80% of the total GHG emissions in a WTW analysis occurs at the vehicle-use phase,18 and the production phase only accounts for approximately 5-17% of total emissions,19 the different life cycle analyses can lead to vastly different results.20 The difficulty and confusion caused by looking at different life cycles is perhaps best illustrated by way of an example. The Pembina Institute has reported that a barrel of oil derived from the oil sands results in GHG emissions that are approximately 3x or 300% more than conventional crude oil.21 Conversely, a study by T.J. McCann found that under a full life cycle (WTW) analysis, the GHG emissions associated with the production of oil sands oil were only approximately 15-16% greater than the same production of domestic onshore light crude.22 300% is vastly different from 15%, yet both percentages may be accurate because they relate to different life cycle analyses. It is therefore important that people understand what comparison is being made when discussing relative life cycle GHG emissions.

Another issue of concern involving a discussion of life cycle relates to the actual the literature confirms that life cycle GHG emissions vary ific recovery method used to recover the oil sands oil (i.e. surface mining versus various and diverse in-situ recovery methods). Accordingly it is difficult to generalize and place a figure on the 'average' GHG emissions from the oil sands. Further, GHG emissions vary from reserve to reserve for conventional oil due to differences associated with production, transportation, and refining methods. Thus the appropriate baseline for comparison purposes becomes important.

A study by T.J. McCann & Associates illustrates the above concern. It compared total GHG emissions per 1,000 liters of transport fuel obtained using both conventional and non-conventional methods.23 The study assumed Chicago-area refining and consumption and found that the life cycle total kilograms of CO2e on a WTW basis for Canadian synthetic crude oil was less than Venezuelan partial upgrader crude, both of which are obtained using non-conventional methods. A similar comparison was made by Mr. Jason Chance, a representative of Alberta Energy, who recently appeared before the California Air Resources Board. He is quoted as having stated:

That is because when you consider the full life cycle [of GHG emissions] from well-to-wheels, Alberta crude from in situ production or integrated mining operations is comparable to Venezuelan or Mexican crude and even some of the heavier crudes currently being produced in California.24

A paper published in the Environmental Research Letters Journal in January 200925 ("Charpentier paper") also highlights the difficulty in accurately measuring the total life cycle GHG emissions of oil sands oil and conventional oil. The Charpentier paper compared 13 studies of GHG emissions associated with oil sands operations and conventional operations and found that "Constructing reliable life cycle models of oil sands pathways is challenging for a variety of reasons, including limited data availability (and the proprietary nature of industry data), the rapid expansion of the industry, the unique and complex nature of each oil sands project, and the evolving technologies being applied in the industry." The authors noted wide variances in the GHG emissions calculated in the earlier studies. Earlier studies varied in their "boundaries, data quality, methods and determinations". The Charpentier paper concluded that a concerted effort was needed "to develop validated life cycle models that produce verifiable results sufficiently refined for supporting sound scientific and public policy decision making". As a result of the wide variance in the studies, the authors stated:

However, when comparing the WTW oil sands pathway results with those of conventional crude oil, the low-end oil sands results fall into the range of the conventional crude oil pathways reported in the studies. While this is probably due to inconsistencies in the modeling in the studies, it is not inconceivable that an oil sands pathway may perform better than a conventional oil pathway, under certain circumstances. For example, it may be possible that an oil sands project with high feedstock quality and minimum extraction and upgrading energy requirements (or low carbon energy inputs) results in lower GHG emissions than a conventional oil project with a low production rate, steam enhanced stimulation, heavy flaring and long transport distance from extraction to market. (emphasis ours)

Such difficulties in interpretation, coupled with the complexities of measuring life cycle GHG emissions using current methods, and the comingling of conventional and oil sands oil within the U.S. fuel supply may make it challenging for the U.S. to enforce any enactments that are predicated upon GHG life cycle analyses.


Recent policy and legislative initiatives in the U.S. have the potential to create significant challenges for the Canadian energy industry in years to come. President Obama has signaled a change in the way the U.S. views energy security from ensuring the U.S. has a proximate, secure source of oil and natural gas to decreasing the U.S. dependency on such oil and natural gas imports. Recent U.S. legislative initiatives include section 526 of the EISA, the LCFS enacted by California and the proposed Clean Energy Act. All of these could act as disincentives to the importation of Canadian oil sands oil. These factors, coupled with the current assault on oil sands oil as "the world's dirtiest oil" in the U.S. media, present a challenge for the oil industry in Canada.

One means of responding to the recent U.S. enactments is to consider challenging them in the context of trade issues. If they can be found to be discriminatory towards Canadian oil sands companies, such discrimination may be sufficient to constitute a NAFTA violation. Alternatively, the enactments may prove to be difficult to enforce due to confusion surrounding various terms, especially their use of the term 'life cycle', which term is generally not defined. Furthermore the data needed for life cycle comparisons may be lacking. Clarification of the term 'life cycle' will be essential if the U.S. intends to rely on the enactments as a basis to decrease its demand for oil sands oil.


1 Government of Alberta, Department of Energy (accessed April 24, 2009)

2 Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy "Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries" (accessed April 24, 2009)

3 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140, [2007] : (accessed April 24, 2009)

4 U.S. Bill H.R. __ American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 111th Cong., 2009 (accessed April 24, 2009)

5 Letter from Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson to Secretary of State Robert Gates, February 22, 2008

6 Jeff Davis "Anti-Oil sands Fighter Waxman Takes U.S. Energy Committee Chair" Embassy (26 November, 2008) (accessed April 24, 2009)

7 James M. Inhofe, Senator, Oklahoma, News Release, "Inhofe Introduces Beneficial Energy Legislation" (January 21, 2009)

8 Institute for 21st Century Energy "A Transition Plan for Securing America's Energy Future", U.S. Chamber of Commerce, (accessed April 24, 2009)

9 Renee Schoof "Air Force drops plans to make fuel from coal in Montana" Miami Herald (29 January 2009), (accessed April 23, 2009)

10 Office of the Governor of California "The Role of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Protecting Our Economy" / (accessed April 24, 2009)

11 See for example, section 4(2)(b) of the Nova Scotia Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act, c.7, 2007 S.N.S.

12 Unlike the system proposed by the Clean Energy Act, Canada's emissions trading system is currently intensity-based. A cap-and-trade system such as that proposed by the Clean Energy Act differs from an intensity-based system. Accordingly, if the Clean Energy Act is adopted in the U.S., current Canadian policies may not be viewed as adequate by the U.S. This could place considerable pressure on Canada to formally adopt a cap-and-trade regime. Although Canada has expressed a desire to move towards a joint North American cap-and-trade system in concert with the U.S., the U.S. has shown little interest in such bilateral discussions. Rather, the process may entail the U.S. adopting its own system and Canada being forced to follow in order to avoid the imposition of further U.S. protectionist measures.

13 As an alterative to the Clean Energy Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") may step into the fray. In April 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. 549 U.S. found that carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, which was drafted in part by Henry Waxman and passed under the Clinton administration in 1990. This decision gives the EPA the authority and responsibility to regulate carbon dioxide without any guidelines from Congress or the House of Representatives. Recently, the EPA declared that global warming endangers human health (See: Environmental Protection Agency, News Release, "EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare/Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling" (17 April, 2009)), increasing the likelihood of further regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the near future. If the Clean Energy Act gets bogged down in Committee, President Obama is expected to order the EPA to impose new regulations to address GHG emissions.

14 "Alberta Wary of California Low-Carbon Fuel Rule", Daily Oil Bulletin, April 27, 2009.

15 North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, United States and Mexico, January 1, 1994

16 Letter from Premier Ed Stelmach to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, March 31, 2009

17 Approximately 70% of Alberta's planed reduction in GHG emissions over the next 40 years is predicated upon CCS. See "Alberta's 2008 Climate Change Strategy, Responsibility/Leadership/ Action", Alberta, January 2008. For the federal proposal, see "Turning the Corner: An Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution". Government of Canada, April 2007; updated in March 2008.

18 Charpentier, Alex D., et al. "Understanding the Canadian oil sands industry's greenhouse gas emissions" Environmental Research Letters, no. 4 (2009): (accessed April 23, 2009)

19 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Environmental Challenges and Progress in Canada's Oil Sands. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, April 2008, at p.4.

20 If 60-80% of the total GHG emissions in a WTW analysis occur at the vehicle-use phase and only 5-17% at the production stage, focusing so much attention on the latter appears to be misguided. The largest contributor to the overall GHG emissions associated with fuel is clearly the conventional internal combustion engine. One would expect that efforts should be concentrated on making that engine more efficient. A 10% increase in fuel efficiency would reap far greater overall GHG reductions than a 15-20% decrease in GHG emissions associated with oil sands oil production.

21 The Pembina Institute, Oil Sands Fever: The Environmental Implications of Canada's Oil Sands Rush. The Pembina Institute, November 2005, at p.22

22 T.J. McCann and Associates Ltd. "Typical Heavy Crude and Bitumen Derivative Greenhouse Gas Life Cycles in 2007" (accessed April 24, 2009). See also the Canada Oil Sands website, which states that "Full life cycle GHG emissions are about 15% higher from fuel derived from oil sands than they are from fuel derived from domestic onshore light crude oil." (accessed May 11, 2009)

23 T.J. McCann and Associates Ltd., supra note 23

24 "Technology Key for Sustainability, Alberta, Industry Attending California Meeting", Daily Oil Bulletin, April 23, 2009

25 Charpentier, supra note 19

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
30 Oct 2019, Other, Toronto, Canada

The materials on the Blakes Business Class website are provided for informational purposes only. Accessing this information does not create a lawyer-client relationship.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions