Unpacking the Ministry of Energy and Minerals’ Deflections and Falsehoods

What the ‘new direction’ on coal actually means for Albertans and the risks it poses to our headwaters, our economy, and our health.

There has been a great deal of information circulated by the Government of Alberta on coal in the last few months, but much of it has been — at best — disingenuous and misleading, if not outright dishonest. Here, we’ve put together a list of 12 FACTS about the new direction on coal in our province, so you can be crystal clear on what’s happening on an issue that impacts all Albertans.

---

1. The moratorium on coal has been lifted, opening 425,000 hectares of leases across 1976 Coal Policy land categories 2, 3 and 4 to potential exploration and mining. 

On January 15, 2025, the Minister of Energy and Minerals directed the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to remove the moratorium on coal mine development and exploration across the Rocky Mountains and Eastern Slopes. The Ministerial Order and accompanying letters were released publicly on January 20.  

The moratorium was put in place in early 2022 in response to tremendous public pushback against new coal mine exploration and development in Alberta’s Eastern Slopes and was meant as an interim measure until a new coal policy was created. No such coal policy has been created or implemented. 

While the Minister and Premier purport that this direction is ‘housekeeping,’ the on-the-ground consequences prove otherwise.  

Immediately upon release of the Ministerial Order, the Alberta Energy Regulator sent letters to coal companies lifting the suspension of all permits previously paused and extending the expiry dates of these permits. This means that coal exploration projects in land categories 2, 3 and 4 — areas that cover nearly the entirety of the Eastern Slopes outside of parks and protected areas — can advance immediately. It also nullifies the question of ‘advanced’ projects, and whether or not Grassy Mountain was exempt, allowing Northback’s exploration permit application to proceed through the regulatory approval process.  

2. The government is creating a new coal policy that both commits to new coal mines AND only consults with the coal industry. 

On December 20, 2024, the Minister of Energy and Minerals announced the launch of the Alberta Coal Industry Modernization Initiative (CIMI). This initiative, which the Minister promises to develop in consultation with industry, commits to the development of a new coal policy and new laws and regulations by the end of 2025.

However, the policy also explicitly allows new coal mining projects in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. 

In a nonsensical statement within Ministerial Order 003/2025, the Minister of Energy and Minerals directs the AER to consider the CIMI as policy guidance as outlined in the Government of Alberta News Release — in effect, to use a non-existent policy as guidance on approval of new coal activities.

3. The promised ban on open-pit mining does not protect the land or water. 

While the Minister states a new coal policy will prohibit mountaintop removal coal mining, and new open-pit coal mines in the foothills, this is of little comfort. According to the Minister, the policy will allow surface mining, highwall mining, contour mining, auger mining, self-contained progressive reclamation mining, and other mining methods. All of these mining styles include stripping away vegetation, soil, and rock to access coal reserves. These all create significant disturbance to land, destroy habitat for species at risk, displace people from the landscape, and create water contamination and air pollution.

4. Reinstating the 1976 Coal Policy does NOT protect the Eastern Slopes.

When the Government of Alberta rescinded the 1976 Coal Policy in May of 2020, they sold 188,000 hectares of new leases across the Eastern Slopes to coal companies. In the period immediately preceding the rescission — when the companies were aware of the impending policy changes, but the public was not — and in the months following, nine coal exploration permits were issued in these newly opened areas and road building and coal exploration drilling commenced, causing irreversible damage to these sensitive areas. 

These projects include: 

Cabin Ridge (one exploration permit) 
Elan Isolation South (two exploration permits) 
Elan South (three exploration permits) 
Montem (now Evolve Power) Chinook projects (two exploration permits) 
Valory Resources Blackstone (one exploration permit) 

While these permits were put on hold in 2022, the 2025 lifting of the moratorium allows exploration and development on freehold lands, older leases and all the leases issued in 2020. Parties with suspended exploration permits can continue and other projects can apply for new permits. Projects like Grassy Mountain, which are in Category 4 zone of the 1976 Policy, are also allowed to move forward with exploration and mine applications with the lifting of the moratorium. 

5. Public consultation has clearly and consistently demonstrated that the majority of Albertans oppose ANY new coal in the Eastern Slopes.

In 2021, the Government of Alberta conducted public consultation on the future of coal in the province.  This consultation showed that  70% of Albertans oppose any new coal exploration and development in Alberta’s Rocky Mountains.   

At the same time, the government struck a Coal Policy Committee, which spent 8 months engaging Albertans, stakeholders, and rights holders on a new direction on coal. The panel’s key recommendation honed in on development of a new coal policy after detailed land-use planning was completed.   

While the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan was released in 2014, it does not address the issue of whether coal is an appropriate land use. However, it does state that “Watershed management and headwaters protection is the priority for both water supply and water quality.” Land-use planning has not been completed in the North Saskatchewan, Upper Athabasca or Upper Peace regions.  

In 2022, more than 50 organizations, businesses and municipalities released A Coal Policy for Alberta: 2022 and Beyond, based on the Coal Policy Committee consultation reports. That citizen-developed Coal Policy supported a complete ban on new coal exploration and development across the province.  CIMI should implement these widely-endorsed recommendations.

“[The committee] just can’t believe that the government would ask us to do all this. And we did it … in a way that was probably much more thorough and much more positive than anything they’d ever done, in terms of getting public engagement,” Trafford said in an interview.

“Then they say, ‘Well, we’re going to throw that in the dumpster and go ahead with what the coal industry thinks they want to do.'”

Bill Trafford, President of the Livingstone Landowners Group and Former Coal Policy Committee Member

6. Coal mines will not provide a net benefit to the provincial economy.

In 2021, the University of Calgary School of Public Policy conducted a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis on the net benefit of coal mining in the Eastern Slopes of Alberta and concluded: 

“Given any individual mine’s small size relative to Alberta’s overall economy, there is unlikely to be any material increase in economic activity relative to the absence of mine development. In contrast, costs to Alberta are likely to be significant. These costs come from displacing other economic activity (primarily ranching and tourism); significant and adverse environmental impacts on water, wildlife, vegetation and air; a non-zero probability the province will be responsible for reclamation liabilities; negative social impacts on nearby communities; and interference with Indigenous Peoples’ interests and rights. Overall, we conclude that coal mine development is not likely to be a net benefit to Alberta, and the costs are likely to outweigh the benefits.” 

Moreover:

1. The economic benefits of coal mining developments are often overstated by proponents¹
2. Metallurgic coal demand and production is expected to decline²
3. The costs of reclamation and risk of long-term liabilities are high³

7. There is no technology that has been proven to prevent water contamination at the scale of an operating mine. 

The coal mining process produces wastewater which contains harmful substances including selenium, nitrate, and suspended solids. These pose serious risks to fish and other aquatic life. Selenium, in particular, is highly problematic. There is no regulation in place that sets or enforces selenium limits and no available technology that can adequately protect aquatic life from being harmed by selenium release. 

How does this happen? Surface coal mining creates large volumes of waste rock, which — when exposed to oxygen — release selenium. This selenium then enters and contaminates watercourses and flows downstream. Aquatic organisms are particularly sensitive to selenium, which bioaccumulates in the aquatic food chain and causes reproductive impairments, reduced growth, and mortality.  

Unfortunately, there are no binding regulations on selenium release, either at a provincial level or at a federal level.⁴

8. Coal mines increase health risks to nearby communities, livestock and agricultural operations.

There are extensive health risks presented by coal, which cannot be ignored if we are to ensure both our communities, and our provincial economy, remain healthy and resilient.

Surface coal mining operations contribute to the deterioration of air quality through emissions of fugitive dust and gases, which can be transported and deposited far from their emission source. For example, a sediment core from Window Mountain Lake, a small headwater lake located roughly 10 kilometres from the Elk View Coal Mine, recorded exponential increase in deposit of polycyclic aromatic compounds paralleling the time period that the Elk River valley coal production has grown. Recent studies also indicate that this dust is being deposited much further downwind and across Alberta’s southern foothills. 

Research in coal mining communities in the United States and elsewhere has linked these dust and emissions to high mortality and morbidity from lung cancer, respiratory, cardiovascular diseases, frequency of birth defects, and reduced quality of life in populations close to or downwind from operating mines.   

Studies also indicate that the bioaccumulation of metals by plants and ingestion by cattle is a significant risk factor from surface coal mines that could result in adverse chronic health effects to cattle.  

9. Monitoring is not mitigation, and mitigation is not prevention.

Monitoring of pollutants such as selenium is often touted as part of ‘best practices’ when it comes to coal mining. But, just because something is monitored, does not mean that it is — or even can be — mitigated or prevented. In Alberta, existing coal mines regularly report on pollutant concentrations above provincial guidelines, but there are no compliance or enforcement actions taken related to selenium released in coal mine effluent. With existing technology, it simply isn’t possible to prevent harm to aquatic life from selenium pollution. A promise to monitor and implement best practices will not change that reality. 

10. The Government of Alberta has the authority and the power to cancel coal agreements, or refuse explorations approvals, for the public good.

The Government of Alberta claims that it needed to lift the moratorium to protect Albertans from coal company lawsuits. However, the province does have other means of protecting itself and Alberta taxpayers. In fact, the Alberta Mines and Minerals Act allows the Minister to cancel a coal agreement (i.e. a coal lease):

 Section 8(1) “The Minister may (c) accept the surrender of, cancel or refuse to renew an agreement as to all or part of a location when the Minister is of the opinion that any or any further exploration for or development of the mineral to which the agreement relates within that location or part of it is not in the public interest, subject to the payment of compensation determined in accordance with the regulations for the lessee’s interest under the agreement.

The relevant regulations are the Mineral Rights Compensation Regulation, Alta Reg 317/2003, which also clearly state that: 

 2(1)  The Minister may give a lessee a notice indicating that 

1. the Minister is of the opinion that any, or any further, exploration for or development of a mineral in the location or part of the location of the lessee’s agreement is not in the public interest.

And if this is the case, compensation is the sum of the amount of money paid to the Crown as application fees, rental, and the company’s exploration and development cost, anticipated reclamation costs, and interest.  In essence, the amount of money that a company has spent to date.  Nowhere does it include potential future lost profits. 

 If the intention behind lifting the moratorium is to reduce the Crown’s exposure to a cost-based compensation claim, it makes no sense whatsoever to encourage or allow additional exploration on Crown leases. As Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk state: “… if the basis for compensation turns out to be recovery of sunk costs rather than speculative market value, the government is simply encouraging  coal mining companies to run up the bill by drilling more exploratory holes.” 

It is also important to note that compensation is never payable when a project like Grassy Mountain is rejected on public interest grounds.  According to Bankes and Yewchuk, “Northback cannot possibly have a valid claim for its original project. That project was resoundingly rejected by the Joint Review Panel in 2021 on public interest grounds and government is not an insurer for the loss that follows when a proponent fails to make its case.” 

11. Relying on the Alberta Energy Regulator is not effective, nor efficient — and it creates regulatory uncertainty. 

Even if the Alberta Energy Regulator were operating at it’s best, relying on the regulator to approve or deny each individual mine application within a landscape that has such tremendous value — socially, economically, and environmentally — is inefficient for industry, government, regulators, stakeholders, rightsholders, and the public. This is especially so when the coal quality, and associated economic benefits, are questionable at best.

The Grassy Mountain Mine Joint Review Panel Report states: “In our capacity as a panel of AER hearing commissioners, we find that the project’s significant adverse environmental effects on surface water quality and westslope cutthroat trout and habitat outweigh the low to moderate positive economic impacts of the project. Therefore, we find that the project is not in the public interest.”  

The panel also concluded that the project would result in the loss of lands used for traditional activities by Indigenous Peoples, and that the project is likely to result in significant adverse effects to physical and cultural heritage for three Treaty 7 First Nations.    

Those same effects would occur across the Eastern Slopes, thus making the entire region inappropriate for coal development. It is wasteful and misleading to encourage companies to pursue approval, knowing these constraints could lead to project denial. 

12. You can have an impact, and make a difference.

Alberta’s public lands and waters are meant to be managed in the best interest of all Albertans.  Collectively, Albertans can stand up for clean water, fresh air, land, wildlife, and sustainable livelihoods. Time and again, when we’ve taken action together, we’ve been successful in changing bad policy.

Tens of thousands of people across the province — from farmers and ranchers, to lawyers and physicians, to municipalities and grassroots groups — spoke out against coal mining from 2020 to 2022. This fierce opposition meant that no new coal mines were built in the Rocky Mountains during that time.

We can do it again. Our elected representative need to hear that Albertans oppose ANY new coal development in the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies. We need to keep the pressure on. If you’ve already sent a pre-written letter, great! Take the next step of writing a personal letter or calling you MLA, the Minister of Energy and Minerals, and the Premier.  See our resources for writing a letter and how to have the biggest impact! 

---

The Footnotes: Where Coal Claims Fall Short

Click on each headline to expand the item.

1. The Distortion of Coal Mine Benefits

The economic benefits of coal mining developments are often overstated by proponents. A detailed analysis of three coal mines in British Columbia found that only 59% of forecasted employment and 34% of forecasted tax revenue materialized over the lifespan of the mines. In part, this is down to the cyclical boom and bust nature of the coal industry and the regular shuttering and re-opening of mines. In Alberta, we see similar patterns, such as in the case of the turbulent history of the Grande Cache coal mine.

2. The Decline of Metallurgical Coal Mines

The International Energy Agency’s 2024 World Energy Outlook and Coal Analysis and Forecast 2027, which predicts that metallurgical coal demand and production will fall in the years ahead.  

The shorter-term Coal Analysis forecast anticipates declining demand, with consumption falling by seven percent between now and 2027. This is “primarily based on steel production forecasts from organisations such as the World Steel Association, together with expected GDP growth and industrial activity, taking into account the increasing rates of scrap utilisation”.  

The longer-term 2024 World Energy Outlook predicts increasingly rapid declines in production (6% decline in production by 2030, 11% by 2035, 27% by 2050) under a Stated Policies scenario, which “provides a sense of the prevailing direction of travel for the energy sector based on a detailed reading of the latest policy settings in countries around the world.”  

These forecasts demonstrate the economic risks of investing in new metallurgical coal mining. As demand decreases, profit margins will be squeezed, and the likelihood of early mine closure or scale-back increases. Claimed economic benefits and reclamation liabilities must be assessed in this context.

3. The High Cost of Reclamation

The costs of reclaiming coal mining sites are high — mining changes topography, vegetation, watercourses and creates huge amounts of waste. Alberta utilizes the Mine Financial Security Program to collect bonds from companies as security, which would be used to reclaim a site if the company fails in its obligation. This is vital to addressing liability concerns but still leaves significant risk to taxpayers.  

One reason for this is that the program uses an ‘assets-to-liability’ approach, which means that the resource being developed can be used as part of the security. As the mine approaches the end of its lifespan, the asset portion of the security decreases and the company must increase the bond portion. However, this mechanism is potentially vulnerable to changes in commodity prices. This should be of particular concern given the forecasted declining demand for metallurgical coal discussed above.  

In the case of the Eastern Slopes, the quality of metallurgical coal reserves has been questioned by experts, thus this is especially concerning if reserves are lower quality than expected and the quality of coal declines as mining progresses past the prime quality seams.  

Both issues could lead to a scenario where the company does not have the funds to cover reclamation activities and reclamation liabilities are not covered by remaining assets/bonds, putting the taxpayer at risk. In addition to this, there is uncertainty about the costs of reclamation and indeed whether mines in the Eastern Slopes could ever be fully reclaimed to an acceptable standard.

4. A Contaminated Water Supply

The Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, which “provide science-based goals for the quality of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems,” identify a maximum long-term selenium concentration of 1 μg/L. Alberta’s Environmental Quality Guidelines for Alberta Surface Waters identify a 2 μg/L maximum (with an alert at 1 μg/L). In the USA, 3.1 μg/L in flowing waters and 1.5 μg/L in standing waters are identified as thresholds by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

In Alberta, there are no binding regulations on selenium release.

At a provincial level, the Alberta Energy Regulator is responsible for oversight of coal mines, but does not set release limits for selenium in wastewater. While selenium concentrations are monitored and reported to the AER, there are no compliance or enforcement actions related to selenium released in coal mine effluent.  

At the federal level, Coal Mining Effluent Regulations have been under development since 2017, but have still not been implemented. The most recent proposed approach in 2022 suggested a limit of 10 μg/L, significantly above the water quality guidelines for aquatic life. This limit is less stringent than a previously proposed 5 μg/L limit, which was changed in response to “concerns… raised by industry and provinces over the achievability of previously proposed new mine limits of 5 μg/L (monthly mean). ECCC is proposing to decrease the stringency of the regulatory standard for new mines to 10 μg/L.”

The document also states that “The proposed end-of-pipe limits are set at levels intended to limit impacts to receiving water quality while considering technical and economic factors.”

It is clear that the proposed limits are being driven by economic and technological factors, not biological thresholds. 

Coal mines in Alberta regularly exceed the selenium thresholds identified to protect aquatic life. For example, on the McLeod River, the data shows that there are elevated selenium concentrations downstream of active mining south of Hinton, and these levels regularly exceed guidelines (46 exceedances observed downstream of mines between 2005 and 2016, 0 upstream of mines). In the Crowsnest Pass, sampling downstream of Tent Mountain and Grassy Mountain has shown elevated selenium concentrations even decades after mine closure. Further risks come from spills, such as the catastrophic release of 670,000 m3 of coal process water (slurry) due to a settling pond wall failure at the Obed Mountain Mine near Hinton in 2013. 

There is no available technology that is effective at removing selenium from coal mine effluent to below water quality guidelines for protecting aquatic life. Even in the Elk Valley, B.C., where billions have been invested in water treatment facilities to try and address selenium pollution, selenium concentrations still exceed those recommended to protect aquatic life. The issue there is so significant that due to the impacts of water pollution downstream in Idaho and Montana that the governments of the United States and Canada have referred the matter to the an International Joint Commission.