IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v16y2023i31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Made-in-Alberta Failure: Unfunded Oil and Gas Closure Liability

Author

Listed:
  • Drew Yewchuk

    (University of British Columbia)

  • Shaun Fluker

    (University of Calgary)

  • Martin Olszynski

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

Alberta policy on inactive and orphan oil and gas wells is a massive regulatory failure characterized by a historical lack of transparency, excessive regulatory discretion, and regulatory capture — three deficiencies long since identified and understood in the scholarship as undermining the effectiveness of environmental laws and policies. The current policy to deal with the problem, the 2020 Liability Management Framework, fails to address these structural problems and is consequently unlikely to substantially reduce inventories of orphan and inactive assets. It is equally unlikely to uphold the polluter-pays principle, which states that the entity that pollutes the environment is responsible for cleaning it up. It is time for an independent and transparent public inquiry to examine Alberta’s mishandling of the inactive and orphan well problem and to recommend a regime that will effectively meet this challenge. The inactive and orphan oil and gas well problem is an immense environmental and financial crisis that has been unsuccessfully dealt with by various policies over several decades. Approximately 230,000 drilled wells in the non-oil sands sector need to be abandoned and reclaimed, while 90,000 others that have been abandoned still await reclamation. The industry has continually delayed this closure work, resulting in a current liability estimate of at least $60 billion—and quite possibly double that amount. This liability is largely unfunded as industry has not set aside enough (or any) money to pay for it, while successive governments over many decades have failed to require industry to post security in any meaningful amounts. In the absence of significant and immediate legal and policy reforms, the coming years and decades will see the enormous environmental, social, and economic costs of this regulatory failure fall on the province’s taxpayers. The new Liability Management Framework’s components include mandatory spending to reduce the inactive inventory, assessment of licensee risk and capacity, and an orphan program. On their face, these are steps in the right direction. However, persisting high levels of secrecy, discretion, and nearly exclusive industry influence put the framework’s goals in doubt. Under the new framework, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) will not disclose financial information on licensees or even the general state of the oil and gas industry. The new framework also still relies heavily on AER discretion to trigger closure obligations and fails to legislate timelines or quotas for closure work. Provisions for external scrutiny are minimal, impeding meaningful democratic oversight. Finally, the framework perpetuates historic industry influence in its design and implementation, which to date has resulted in a singular focus on minimizing industry’s costs at the expense of reducing environmental risks and protecting the public purse. Albertans have watched for decades as the problem of orphan and inactive assets has burgeoned into an environmental and financial crisis. They deserve a full accounting for the policies that have led to this state of affairs and they need unimpeded access to all of the relevant facts and information so that they can better understand the policy choices facing them as residents and taxpayers in the province.

Suggested Citation

  • Drew Yewchuk & Shaun Fluker & Martin Olszynski, 2023. "A Made-in-Alberta Failure: Unfunded Oil and Gas Closure Liability," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 16(31), October.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:16:y:2023:i:31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/EFL-49A-AB-ConvenOGLiabilityRegime.YewchukFluker.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Dachis & Blake Schaffer & Vincent Thivierge, 2017. "All’s Well that Ends Well: Addressing End-of-Life Liabilities for Oil and Gas Wells," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 492, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Schiffner & Maik Kecinski & Sandeep Mohapatra, 2021. "An updated look at petroleum well leaks, ineffective policies and the social cost of methane in Canada’s largest oil-producing province," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Schiffner, Daniel & Banks, Jonathan & Rabbani, Arif & Lefsrud, Lianne & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2022. "Techno-economic assessment for heating cattle feed water with low-temperature geothermal energy: A case study from central Alberta, Canada," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 1105-1120.
    3. Victoria Goodday & Braeden Larson, 2021. "The Surface Owner’S Burden: Landowner Rights And Alberta’S Oil And Gas Well Liabilities Crisis," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 14(16), May.
    4. Benjamin Dachis, 2018. "Death by a Thousand Cuts? Western Canada’s Oil and Natural Gas Policy Competitiveness Scorecard," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 501, February.
    5. Shimai Su & Anna Tur, 2022. "Estimation of Initial Stock in Pollution Control Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-11, September.
    6. Peng Zhang & Boyun Guo, 2024. "A Feasibility Assessment of Heat Energy Productivity of Geothermal Wells Converted from Oil/Gas Wells," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-16, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:16:y:2023:i:31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.