CDP 2015 Water 2015 Information Request
CDP
Suncor Energy Inc.
Module: Introduction
Page: W0. Introduction
W0.1
Introduction
Please give a general description and introduction to your organization.
In 1967, Suncor Energy pioneered commercial development of Canada's oil sands — one of the largest petroleum resource basins in the world. Since then, Suncor
has grown to become a globally competitive integrated energy company with a balanced portfolio of high-quality assets, a strong balance sheet, and significant
growth prospects.
Suncor’s operations, located near Fort McMurray, Alberta, in the Athabasca region, extract and upgrade oil sands into high-quality, refinery-ready crude oil products
and diesel fuel. Across Canada and in Colorado, Suncor markets the company's refined products to industrial, commercial, and retail customers. In Canada, its
network of more than 1,450 Petro-Canada stations is one of the most customer-recognized, top-volume retailers in the country. Suncor Energy has refineries in
Edmonton, Alberta; Sarnia, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; and Commerce City, Colorado. Suncor’s lubricants business is the largest producer of quality lubricantbased stocks in Canada, with customers worldwide. In western Canada, across the East Coast of Canada, and internationally, Suncor explores for, develops, and
produces conventional oil — from both onshore and offshore developments.
Suncor is also investing in clean, renewable energy sources. Suncor has seven wind power projects in operation with a total capacity of 295 megawatts, enough to
power about 115,000 Canadian homes per year. Suncor also operates Canada’s largest ethanol facility in St. Clair, Ontario, which has a current production capacity
of 400 million liters per year. The ethanol is blended into its Petro-Canada gasoline and contributes to avoiding up to 600,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions
per year.
W0.2
Reporting year
Please state the start and end date of the year for which you are reporting data.
1
Period for which data is reported
Wed 01 Jan 2014 - Wed 31 Dec 2014
W0.3
Reporting boundary
Please indicate the category that describes the reporting boundary for companies, entities, or groups for which water-related impacts are reported.
Companies, entities or groups over which operational control is exercised
W0.4
Exclusions
Are there any geographies, facilities or types of water inputs/outputs within this boundary which are not included in your disclosure?
No
W0.4a
Exclusions
Please report the exclusions in the following table
Exclusion
Please explain why you have made the exclusion
2
Further Information
Module: Current State
Page: W1. Context
W1.1
Please rate the importance (current and future) of water quality and water quantity to the success of your organization
Water quality and
quantity
Direct use
importance
rating
Indirect use
importance
rating
Sufficient amounts of
good quality freshwater
available for use
Vital for
operations
Important
Sufficient amounts of
recycled, brackish and/or
produced water available
for use
Vital for
operations
Important
Please explain
Water is an integral component of Suncor's operations to mine, upgrade and refine oil & gas
products. The majority of water used is sourced from fresh water with the exception being off-shore
operations. The most significant indirect water use is related to ethanol production. Water used for
the production of corn to feed our ethanol facility is the single largest indirect use of water. Given
there are very few waterless (or water independent) manufacturing chains that support Suncor's
value chain, it is important to evaluate the risk to Suncor.
Suncor has been increasing the amount of water recycling/reuse at its major oil sands operating
facility to the point where recycled water is greater than 50% of planned water use. Our Edmonton
refinery's primary water supply is reused municipal wastewater effluent from the local treatment
facility. As water stewardship increases globally and companies move to reduce their water footprint,
reuse water will continue to grow across our value chain.
W1.2
For your total operations, please detail which of the following water aspects are regularly measured and monitored and provide an explanation as to why
or why not
3
Water aspect
% of
sites/facilities/operations
Water withdrawals- total
volumes
76-100
Water withdrawalsvolume by sources
76-100
Water discharges- total
volumes
76-100
Water discharges- volume
by destination
76-100
Water discharges- volume
by treatment method
76-100
Water discharge quality
data- quality by standard
effluent parameters
76-100
Water consumption- total
volume
76-100
Facilities providing fullyfunctioning WASH
services for all workers
76-100
Please explain
Total water withdrawal volumes are measured and monitored at our operating facilities because: we
are required to measure/report to regulators the water volumes we withdraw; we report our water
withdrawal volumes annually to our Stakeholders in our Report on Sustainability to increase
transparency with our Stakeholders; and, Suncor has publicly stated water goals that require us to
track and report our withdrawal volumes in order to understand our progress toward achieving these
goals.
Total water withdrawal volumes by source are measured and monitored at all of our operating facilities
as we are required to report the volumes we withdraw from each source to the regulators where we
operate.
The total water discharge volumes are measured and monitored as we are required to report to the
regulators the volume of water we discharge (return) back to the environment. Suncor also reports this
volume annually to our stakeholders in our Report on Sustainability.
The total water discharge volumes by destination are measured and monitored as we are required to
report to the regulators the volume of water we discharge (return) back to the environment and where
we discharge the water.
The water discharge volumes by treatment method are both measured and monitored as we are
required to report this information to the regulators.
Suncor measures and monitors our water discharge quality effluent parameters as we are regulated in
our operating approvals on the quality of water we discharge back to the environment. This requires
that we analyze for specific parameters and report these results to the regulators on a monthly and/or
annual basis. We also report effluent water quality annually to our stakeholders in the Suncor Report
on Sustainability.
Suncor measures and monitors our water consumption volumes for all of our facilities because we
report these volumes annually to our stakeholders in our Report on Sustainability. Suncor also has
publicly stated water goals so we measure and monitor these volumes to understand our progress
toward achieving these goals.
Suncor's operations are in developed countries which all have requirements for worker health and
safety as well as water and sanitation provision.
W1.2a
4
Water withdrawals: for the reporting year, please provide total water withdrawal data by source, across your operations
Source
Quantity
(megaliters/year)
How does total
water withdrawals
for this source
compare to the last
reporting year?
Comment
Fresh surface water
90175
About the same
Brackish surface
water/seawater
26185
Higher
26032
Much lower
No operating changes for 2014 compared to 2013.
There was an increase in sea water withdrawal in the 2014 calendar year due to increased
operational hours and production of Suncor's East Coast Floating, Production, Storage
and Offloading facility.
Less precipitation in 2014 than in 2013.
0
About the same
No operating changes for 2014 compared to 2013.
Rainwater
Groundwater renewable
Groundwater - nonrenewable
2101
Much lower
At Firebag we used more runoff water and less groundwater; at Oil Sands the
groundwater withdrawal is associated with de-watering/de-pressurization wells and the
decrease in withdrawal reflects natural annual fluctuations in the water table; at Commerce
City Well #2 was not operating in 2014.
Produced/process
water
37887
About the same
No operating changes for 2014 compared to 2013.
Municipal supply
3492
Much lower
Decrease in municipal water withdrawal is due to combination of: changing out flow meters
at Commerce City and having to rely on estimated volumes for part of the year, flow meter
issues at Lubricants in 2013 possibly resulting in an over estimation of volume, replacing
sanitation equipment with low flow equipment at Montreal Refinery.
Wastewater from
another organization
1288
Much lower
Function of the external organization.
Total
187160
Lower
The overall decrease in water withdrawal is mainly due to decreases in groundwater and
precipitation withdrawals as noted above.
W1.2b
Water discharges: for the reporting year, please provide total water discharge data by destination, across your operations
5
Destination
Fresh surface water
Brackish surface water/seawater
Groundwater
Municipal treatment plant
Total
Quantity (megaliters/year)
82974
18249
0
0
101223
How does total water discharged to
this destination compare to the last
reporting year?
Comment
About the same
About the same
About the same
About the same
About the same
W1.2c
Water consumption: for the reporting year, please provide total water consumption data, across your operations
Consumption
(megaliters/year)
48050
How does this
consumption figure
compare to the last
reporting year?
Much lower
Comment
Overall decrease in water consumption is a result of numerous factors including: start-up of a wastewater treatment
plant at Oil Sands resulting in the need to withdraw less water and recycle more; lower production volumes at some
facilities resulted in lower water consumption; re-routing reverse osmosis backwash water back to the environment
rather than sewer at our St Clair Ethanol Plant; replacing old sanitation equipment with modern low-flow equipment
at our Montreal Refinery.
W1.3
Do you request your suppliers to report on their water use, risks and/or management?
6
No
W1.3a
Please provide the proportion of suppliers you request to report on their water use, risks and/or management and the proportion of your procurement
spend this represents
Proportion of suppliers %
Total procurement spend %
Rationale for this coverage
W1.3b
Please choose the option that best explains why you do not request your suppliers to report on their water use, risks and/or management
Primary reason
Important but not an
immediate business
priority
Please explain
Suncor has prioritized water risk assessments to ensure we are capturing the largest issues early and launching appropriate
mitigation. Sustainability of our supply chain is under evaluation overall, however at this time we are not currently asking for
information on supplier water use, risks and management as there are higher priority issues to address.
W1.4
Has your organization experienced any detrimental impacts related to water in the reporting period?
7
Yes
W1.4a
Please describe the detrimental impacts experienced by your organization related to water in the reporting year
Country
Canada
River
basin
Mackenzie
River
Impact
indicator
Reg-Unclear
and/or unstable
regulations on
water allocation
and wastewater
discharge
Impact
Description of impact
Other:
Future
long term
financial
liability
Provincial and Federal
government have not
proactively addressed
guidance or regulations
around return of oil
sands process affected
water back to the
watershed during
operation or final
closure. The
uncertainty has not
allowed operators to
fully develop
sustainable water
management plans.
Suncor has executed a
tactical water strategy
for oil sands operations
based around reducing
water use and reusing
water optimized against
a deterioration of
circulating water
quality. Suncor's mine
site closure plans may
have to change due to
the uncertainty.
Length of
impact
>5 years
Overall financial
impact
Financial impacts
cannot be
quantified at this
time as all risk are
in the future
Response
strategy
Alignment of
public policy
positions with
water
stewardship
goals
Engagement
with public
policy makers
Engagement
with other
stakeholders
in the river
basin
Increased
investment in
new
technology
Promote best
practice and
awareness
Establish sitespecific
targets
Water
management
incentives
Description of
response strategy
Suncor in coordination
with other major
operators in the
watershed have been
having technical
discussions at both
federal and provincial
level to drive progress
on this issue. Without
certainty on wastewater
discharge regulations,
sustainable water
management is more
difficult.
8
Country
Canada
United
States of
America
River
basin
Mackenzie
River
Mississippi
River
Impact
indicator
Reg-Statutory
water withdrawal
limits/changes to
water allocation
Rep-Negative
media coverage
Reg-Regulation
of discharge
quality/volumes
leading to higher
compliance costs
Reg-Regulatory
Impact
Brand
damage
Higher
operating
costs
Description of impact
Suncor was targeted by
an organization called
Sum of Us regarding
our water allocation
from the Athabasca
River via an intense
negative media
campaign.
Government of Alberta
has been working to
develop a Surface
Water Quantity
Framework (which was
released in 2015)
designed to restrict
industry water withdraw
from the river during a
low flow event.
Suncor's water license
(and three other
operators) is
grandfathered under
the new regulation due
to the design and age
of our facilities.
Irrespective Suncor
publicly agreed if a low
flow event occurred,
Suncor would reduce
our allowable water
withdraw rate by 50%.
Emerging State and
Federal water quality
regulations will require
improvements to the
effluent quality
discharged from
Length of
impact
Overall financial
impact
Ongoing
Financial impacts
cannot be
quantified
independently.
3-10 years
to be in
effect and
then ongoing
compliance.
Capital
Expenditures
could be as high
as $50M to
$150M over the
next few years.
Response
strategy
Alignment of
public policy
positions with
water
stewardship
goals
Engagement
with public
policy makers
Engagement
with other
stakeholders
in the river
basin
Promote best
practice and
awareness
Engagement
with public
policy makers
Increased
investment in
new
Description of
response strategy
Suncor continued to
demonstrate water
stewardship in the
Athabasca River by
reducing water withdraw
from 43 Mm3 in 2007 to
18 Mm3 now in 2014 on
a total allowable license
of 60 Mm3. Suncor
also engaged with
Pembina Institute
(Environmental think
tank) to have an
independent expert
panel review Suncor's
water strategy for the
Athabasca River.
Suncor also continues to
engage stakeholders in
the watershed
discussing concerns
about water quantity.
Suncor has dedicated a
significant amount of
time and resources over
the past 5 years to
developing a solution to
comply with the
9
Country
River
basin
Impact
indicator
uncertainty
Impact
Description of impact
refinery operations with
a particular focus on
metals and nutrients.
Emerging regulations
are impacting both
municipal (POTW’s)
and industrial (refining,
mining and power
generation) sectors.
The stringent effluent
quality required is well
below background
environmental levels
and is not easily
achievable using Best
Available Technology
(BAT) in the
marketplace today.
This is requiring a
substantial amount of
R&D and testing of
existing and emerging
technologies to find a
solution which does not
significantly impact
other environmental
receptors by generating
increased GHG
emissions or sending
waste offsite for
disposal.
Length of
impact
Overall financial
impact
Operating and
Maintenance
Expenditures
between $5M and
$15M per year.
Response
strategy
technology
Description of
response strategy
emerging regulations.
During this time, the
quality of water
discharged from the
refinery has been
continually improving.
Ongoing discussions
and collaboration with
State regulators
continues to ensure a
fair and effective
compliance schedule is
achieved
W1.4b
Please choose the option below that best explains why you do not know if your organization experienced any detrimental impacts related to water in the
reporting year and any plans you have to investigate this in the future
10
Primary reason
Future plans
Further Information
Module: Risk Assessment
Page: W2. Procedures and Requirements
W2.1
Does your organization undertake a water-related risk assessment?
Water risks are assessed
W2.2
Please select the options that best describe your procedures with regard to assessing water risks
Risk assessment
procedure
Comprehensive
company-wide risk
assessment
Coverage
Direct
operations
Scale
All facilities
and some
suppliers
Please explain
Suncor completed its first comprehensive detailed water risk assessment for all operations in 2013. Prior
to 2013, water risk assessments were conducted on facility or regional basis. We are planning for biannual review/updates starting in 2015 and every 2 years after. Water risks are not expected to change
significantly for a basin on a year over year basis and mitigations to water risks tend to be long term
11
Risk assessment
procedure
Coverage
Scale
Please explain
solutions. In between reviews, SIMP, our Strategic Issues Management Process (SIMP) will capture and
respond to rapid developing water risks. Suncor uses multiple tools to flag water risks and assesses
potential impacts. These tools include our Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) system; Materiality
Review for the completion of our annual GRI G4 report; and SIMP.
W2.3
Please state how frequently you undertake water risk assessments, what geographical scale and how far into the future you consider risks for each
assessment
Frequency
Every two
years
Geographic
scale
River basin
How far into the future
are risks considered?
>6 years
Comment
Suncor has been using a context based water risk assessment process. The context is the
geographical scale of the river basins that our facilities operate. This approach allows Suncor to
understand the river basin and how our water management strategies fit within that context.
W2.4
Have you evaluated how water risks could affect the success (viability, constraints) of your organization's growth strategy?
Yes, evaluated over the next 10 years
W2.4a
12
Please explain how your organization evaluated the effects of water risks on the success (viability, constraints) of your organization's growth strategy?
In 2014, Suncor implemented major changes to their Asset Development Execution Model (ADEM) which incorporated environmental (water, air, GHG, land) and
social risk assessments into the initial development of all new projects as well as in existing operations. The intent of ADEM is to ensure environmental and social
risks are part of the baseline definition of any growth strategy. This means environmental and social risks are considered at the outset (problem definition) before
any concept is selected. The impact of ADEM is a much more rigorous - balanced understanding of all risks (including water) on Suncor's growth strategy.
W2.4b
What is the main reason for not having evaluated how water risks could affect the success (viability, constraints) of your organization's growth strategy,
and are there any plans in place to do so in the future?
Main reason
Current plans
Timeframe until evaluation
Comment
W2.5
Please state the methods used to assess water risks
Method
IPIECA Global Water
Tool for Oil & Gas
Other: Internal Asset
Development Execution
Model
Please explain how these methods are used in your risk assessment
Suncor is on a path of maturity from water management to water stewardship. In 2007, Suncor publicly disclosed a sustainability
water goal and began development of a water strategy for oil sands & in situ operations. The intent of the strategy was to ensure all
Business Unit opportunities & risks were integrated for optimization of opportunities to improve our overall business and sustainability
performance. The strategy lead to the development of a cohesive plan that is reviewed, approved, and executed by Oil Sands. While
this strategy was reactive initially, it has laid the foundation for transformation into a proactive platform. As Suncor has neared the
13
Method
Please explain how these methods are used in your risk assessment
end of the 2015 Water Goal period, Suncor has conducted a corporate-wide water risk assessment for all our operations. The
assessment has been foundational to the development of a post 2015 sustainability water goal. The IPIECA tool is used to develop
greater understanding in the watersheds Suncor operates. For some watersheds, such as the Athabasca, Suncor as part of COSIA
(Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance) has developed detailed river model and scenario planning tools. As an example >2.9
Million scenarios for the Athabasca River have been developed for the next 30 years, that time frame encompasses all planned
operations in the lower Athabasca River. In addition Suncor has developed detailed water balances, and for some sites chemistry
models, that enable inside the fence scenario planning around water.
W2.6
Which of the following contextual issues are always factored into your organization's water risk assessments?
Issues
Current water availability and quality
parameters at a local level
Current water regulatory frameworks
and tariffs at a local level
Current stakeholder conflicts
concerning water resources at a
local level
Choose option
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Current implications of water on your
key commodities/raw materials
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Current status of ecosystems and
habitats at a local level
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Please explain
For all sites current water quantity and quality at a site specific scale is understood.
All our operational sites have an operating regulatory approval with limits which typically require
monthly and annual reporting to regulatory agencies.
Suncor actively engages with stakeholders with regards to water resources and these
issues/risks are part of identified risks. Operational changes to water systems at sites which
trigger regulatory applications require stakeholder consultation as part of the review.
Current operations are not in areas of water stress. A review of our supply chain did not
categorize water as an issue. Future scenario planning that include climate change are being
developed and may represent future risk, however current information/tools have limitations for
long term predictions that must be improved.
Suncor monitors and assesses ecosystem impacts on a local level. For some operational
sites there is greater and more extensive basin impact monitoring. For example Athabasca
River basin is being monitored by a Joint Oil Sands Monitoring program and is spending $50M
dollars per year monitoring impact on the ecosystem. To date there has been no significant
14
Issues
Current river basin management
plans
Current access to fully-functioning
WASH services for all employees
Estimates of future changes in water
availability at a local level
Estimates of future potential
regulatory changes at a local level
Estimates of future potential
stakeholder conflicts at a local level
Choose option
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Estimates of future implications of
water on your key commodities/raw
materials
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Estimates of future potential changes
in the status of ecosystems and
habitats at a local level
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Scenario analysis of availability of
sufficient quantity and quality of
water relevant for your operations at
a local level
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Scenario analysis of regulatory
and/or tariff changes at a local level
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Please explain
impacts from oil sands development identified.
Suncor via COSIA (Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance) has been a leader in the
development of a river basin management plan for the Athabasca river. This work has led to
the development of multiple tools and has now generated more than 2.9 Million scenarios for all
current and planned operations in the region for the next 30 years. These tools were
developed jointly with all operators in the region and have been shared with the provincial and
federal government.
For all of Suncor's sites we have WASH services for all employees.
Suncor has evaluated water availability using IPIECA Global Water Tool for Oil and Gas for
almost all facilities that we operate.
Suncor monitors future potential regulatory changes at the federal, provincial/state, and
municipal level to understand how these changes could impact operations. Suncor also
monitors regulations in other jurisdictions and evaluates potential impacts, timing and risk.
Suncor has stakeholder relation teams for all operating facilities that work to understand issues
and impacts. This information is transferred into Suncor’s risk assessment work.
Future scenario planning that includes climate change as well are being developed and may
represent future risk, however current information/tools have limitations for long term
predictions that must be improved. An example of a long term tool includes water basin level
projections that include climate change scenarios.
Suncor has actively monitored or supported monitoring efforts of changes within ecosystems
and habitats. Examples include annual reporting, RAMP (regional aquatics monitoring
program) and JOSM (Joint Oil Sands Monitoring). These programs are trying to assess
changes in the system and predict future impacts in the watershed that would allow for
adaptive management for the long term.
Suncor has developed models and tools that allow it to understand available water quantity and
quality at the local level. This analysis frequency involves some scenario analysis however;
more sophisticated models/tools are being developed to capture basin level projections that
would better inform local water risks.
As Suncor identifies future potential regulatory or policy changes we do evaluate potential
impact to our operations. An example would be a draft set of rules from the USEPA on
wastewater streams from power generating facilities. These rules may eventually be applied to
one of Suncor’s Canadian operations. This scenario was included in a recent risk assessment.
15
Issues
Choose option
Scenario analysis of stakeholder
conflicts concerning water resources
at a local level
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Scenario analysis of implications of
water on your key commodities/raw
materials
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Scenario analysis of potential
changes in the status of ecosystems
and habitats at a local level
Relevant, included for
some
facilities/suppliers
Please explain
Suncor includes stakeholder scenarios with regards to water resources at the local level.
These inputs are more difficult to estimate the impact and likelihood.
Future scenario planning that include climate change are being developed and may represent
future risk, however current information/tools have limitations for long term predictions that
must be improved. An example of a long term tool includes water basin level projections that
include climate change scenarios.
Water basin level projections that include climate change scenarios are being developed at one
of our operational sites. These tools are required to develop scenario of potential changes over
decades. Near term scenarios (next 5 to 10 years) are examined based on current monitoring
programs and indicate acceptable impact.
Other
W2.7
Which of the following stakeholders are always factored into your organization's water risk assessments?
Stakeholder
Customers
Employees
Investors
Local communities
NGOs
Other water users at a
Choose option
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Relevant, included for
Please explain
Impact of reputation on Suncor's brand with regards to water has been evaluated as a component of
the overall water risk assessment file.
Suncor has included evaluation of employee impact on execution of water management on-site. This
included aspects of roles and accountability, complexity and experience.
Suncor investors or investment organizations have been identified as stakeholders as part of our risk
assessment framework.
Local communities have been identified and included in Suncor's water risk assessment for the
majority of our operational sites.
NGOs have been identified and included in Suncor's water risk assessment for the majority of our
operational sites.
Some other local water users have been identified as stakeholders that do not fall into the major
16
Stakeholder
Choose option
local level
some facilities/suppliers
Regulators
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
River basin management
authorities
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Statutory special interest
groups at a local level
Suppliers
Water utilities/suppliers at
a local level
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Not evaluated
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Other
Relevant, included for
some facilities/suppliers
Please explain
categories.
Regulators have been identified and included in Suncor's water risk assessment for the majority of
our major operational sites. Outside of water risk assessment Suncor has extensive contact with
regulators about all our operations.
Suncor collaborates with river basin management authorities, however for our operations in North
America jurisdiction of the basin is with government. So they are not authorities but what we term as
a council of all watershed users.
First Nations have been identified as key stakeholders and included in Suncor's overall water risk
assessment.
Water utilities/suppliers have been identified and included in Suncor's water risk assessment for the
majority of our major operational sites.
Multi-stakeholder organizations such as CERES, have been identified as stakeholders as part of our
risk assessment framework. Using CERES as an example Suncor has had workshops on the
development of our Post 2015 Sustainability Goals including water.
W2.8
Please choose the option that best explains why your organisation does not undertake a water-related risk assessment
Primary reason
Please explain
Further Information
Module: Implications
Page: W3. Water Risks
17
W3.1
Is your organization exposed to water risks, either current and/or future, that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue
or expenditure?
Yes, direct operations only
W3.2
Please provide details as to how your organization defines substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure from water risk
Suncor uses an enterprise wide risk management system (ERM) to assess and define risk. Like most ERM systems it uses a matrix that determines the
consequence of a risk and the likelihood. There are six (6) consequence and likelihood categories. The ERM assign risks a ranking from I to IV for economic,
environmental and social. Social is further broken down into Health & Safety, Reputation and Regulatory with guidance. Suncor defines substantive risks that are
risked rank at II or I; this translates into a number of different consequence-probability combinations that will not be listed here. Suncor is currently in the process of
revising the ERM and it is expected to be rolled out for 2016. To simplify define substantive change for the purpose of this survey an economic value of $10M was
used.
W3.2a
Please provide the number of facilities* per river basin exposed to water risks that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations,
revenue or expenditure and the proportion of total operations this represents
Country
Canada
Number of
facilites
River basin
Mackenzie
3
Proportion of total
operations
exposed to risk
within river basin
(%)
41-50
Comment
These facilities make up our primary oil sands operations and include our oil sands
18
Country
Proportion of total
operations
exposed to risk
within river basin
(%)
Number of
facilites
River basin
River
Canada
St. Lawrence
4
21-30
Canada
Nelson River
1
11-20
1
1-5
1
11-20
Canada
United States
of America
Other: Atlantic
Ocean
Mississippi
River
Comment
base plant and mine, as well as our In Situ operations; Firebag & MacKay River.
These facilities make up the majority of our Refining & Marketing operations and
include our Sarnia Refinery, Montreal Refinery, Mississauga Lubricants Centre and
our Ethanol Plant.
This facility is one of the refineries included in our Refining & Marketing operations;
Edmonton Refinery.
This facility is our primary off shore operation; situated off the east coast of Canada,
the Terra Nova Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessel.
This facility is one of the refineries included in our Refining & Marketing operations;
Commerce City Refinery.
W3.2b
Please provide the proportion of financial value that could be affected at river basin level associated with the facilities listed in W3.2a
Country
Canada
Canada
Canada
Canada
United States of America
River basin
Mackenzie River
St. Lawrence
Nelson River
Other: Atlantic Ocean
Mississippi River
Financial reporting metric
% global production capacity
% global production capacity
% global production capacity
% global production capacity
% global production capacity
Proportion of chosen metric
that could be affected within
the river basin
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
Comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
19
W3.2c
Please list the inherent water risks that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure, the potential impact
to your direct operations and the strategies to mitigate them
Countr
y
Canada
River
basin
Mackenzi
e River
Risk driver
RegulatoryUnclear and/or
unstable
regulations on
water
allocation and
wastewater
discharge
Potentia
l impact
Higher
operatin
g costs
Description
of impact
There is
currently a
lack of clarity
around
regulatory
requirements
for return of
oil sands
process
affected
water
(OSPW) back
to the
watershed
during either
operational
phase or for
final closure.
The lack of
certainty
increases risk
to long term
closure plans
as currently
constructed
and the
Timefram
e
>6 years
Likelihoo
d
Probable
Magnitud
e of
potential
financial
impact
Medium
Response
strategy
Engagement
with public
policy
makers
Costs of
respons
e
strategy
Low
Details of strategy and
costs
Suncor along with 6 other
operators has been
engaging both Federal and
Provincial technical and
policy leaders for 2.5 years
to drive discussion towards
certainty of regulatory tools
for water return to the
environment. The cost of
this effort is low. Suncor
and the other operators
through COSIA (Canadian
Oil Sands Innovation
Alliance) have also been
executing projects that will
provide technical input into
development of policy
framework. These
projects include a
Watershed wide substance
load allocation tool to
provide watershed
management information
for the Athabasca River
Basin; Chronic effect
benchmarks standard
20
Countr
y
River
basin
Risk driver
Potentia
l impact
Description
of impact
Timefram
e
Likelihoo
d
Magnitud
e of
potential
financial
impact
Response
strategy
Costs of
respons
e
strategy
ability to
manage both
quantity and
quality of
water during
operational
phase of the
projects.
Canada
Mackenzi
e River
RegulatoryUnclear and/or
unstable
regulations on
water
allocation and
wastewater
discharge
Higher
operatin
g costs
The main oil
sands base
plant has to
reduce
130Mm3 of
excess water
contained in
tailings ponds
by 2018
without the
option to be
able to return
the water
back to the
watershed.
1-3 years
Highly
probable
High
Infrastructur
e investment
High
Details of strategy and
costs
development; and
understanding/developme
nt of technology/sector
based effluent limits (Best
Available Technology
Economically Achievable BATEA concepts). All this
work is being developed
jointly by the majority of
the operators in the region.
Suncor portion of the
overall cost is less than
$500k for these project.
High Suncor planned and
developed a tactical water
containment strategy that
includes 3 phases of
projects to reduce on site
water in tailings ponds by
130 Mm3 by 2018. There
are roughly 18 projects
covered by the 3 phases
that achieve the required
reduction in water. All of
these projects reduce or
reuse water on site. The
cost for the containment
strategy is ~400M dollars
of infrastructure
investment. There is also
a tactical water quality
strategy that is currently
under development to
21
Countr
y
River
basin
Risk driver
Potentia
l impact
Description
of impact
Timefram
e
Likelihoo
d
Magnitud
e of
potential
financial
impact
Response
strategy
Costs of
respons
e
strategy
Details of strategy and
costs
address water quality
impacts. While full
definition of the risks of
changing water quality on
site is complete, the
mitigation plans are still in
development and are
limited to a single aspect
of the operation-upgrading.
Costs have not been
determined.
Canada
St.
Lawrence
PhysicalIncreased
water stress
Higher
operatin
g costs
Montreal and
Mississauga
operations
using the
IPIECA
Global Water
Tool scored
0.4 -1.0 and
0.2 - 0.4
respectively
on mean
annual
relative water
stress index.
This indicates
there is a
greater
potential for
water related
risks. The
potential
impact of
>6 years
Unknown
Unknown
Other:
Problem
Definition
Lowmedium
Suncor is undertaking a
process that provides
correct definitionassessment of this water
risk. As this process
progresses understanding
of the potential issues, the
impact and mitigation will
be determined. Costs
associated with definition
have been estimated at
$2million for these two
facilities.
22
Countr
y
River
basin
Risk driver
Potentia
l impact
Description
of impact
Timefram
e
Likelihoo
d
Magnitud
e of
potential
financial
impact
Response
strategy
Costs of
respons
e
strategy
Details of strategy and
costs
these risks
will likely
translate to
higher
operational
costs.
Canada
United
States
of
America
Nelson
River
Mississipp
i River
Other:
Physical Wastewater
disposal risk
PhysicalProjected
water stress
RegulatoryRegulation of
discharge
quality/volume
s leading to
higher
Higher
operatin
g costs
Higher
operatin
g costs
>6 years
Commerce
City refinery
operation
scored 4.0 on
mean annual
relative water
stress index
using the
IPIECA
1-3 years
Probable
Probable
High
High
Other:
Problem
Definition
Establish
site-specific
targets
Infrastructur
e investment
LowMedium
Medium
Suncor is undertaking a
process that provides
correct definitionassessment of this water
risk. As this process
progresses understanding
of the potential issues, the
impact and mitigation will
be determined. To date
cost has been low and
focused on understanding
geo-environmental
chemistry of the
operational issues of the
disposal wells. This work
has been internal with
costs being less than
$500K
Suncor is undertaking a
process that provides
correct definitionassessment of this water
risk. As this process
progresses understanding
of the potential issues, the
impact and mitigation will
be determined. Costs
23
Countr
y
River
basin
Risk driver
compliance
costs
Potentia
l impact
Description
of impact
Global Water
Tool. This
indicates
there is
greater
potential for
water related
risks. The
potential
impact of
these risks
will likely lead
to higher
operating
costs in the
long term.
The site is
also making
improvement
s to the
wastewater
treatment
system to
meet
incoming
regulations
for specific
contaminates
.
Timefram
e
Likelihoo
d
Magnitud
e of
potential
financial
impact
Response
strategy
Costs of
respons
e
strategy
Details of strategy and
costs
associated with definition
have been estimated at
$6million for the facility
W3.2d
24
Please list the inherent water risks that could generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure, the potential impact to
your supply chain and the strategies to mitigate them
Country
River
basin
Risk driver
Potential
impact
Description
Timeframe
of impact
Likelihood
Magnitude of
potential
financial
impact
Response
strategy
Costs of
response
strategy
Details of
strategy
and costs
W3.2e
Please choose the option that best explains why you do not consider your organization to be exposed to water risks in your direct operations that could
generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure
Primary reason
Please explain
W3.2f
Please choose the option that best explains why you do not consider your organization to be exposed to water risks in your supply chain that could
generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure
Primary reason
Risks exist, but no substantive impact
anticipated
Please explain
Suncor has conducted preliminary assessment of supply chain water risks. The assessment did not rank
water as a significant risk to our supply chain.
25
W3.2g
Please choose the option that best explains why you do not know if your organization is exposed to water risks that could generate a substantive
change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure and discuss any future plans you have to assess this
Primary reason
Future plans
Further Information
Page: W4. Water Opportunities
W4.1
Does water present strategic, operational or market opportunities that substantively benefit/have the potential to benefit your organization?
Yes
W4.1a
Please describe the opportunities water presents to your organization and your strategies to realize them
26
Country
or
region
Canada
Canada
Opportunity
Improved
water
efficiency
Collective
Action
Innovation
Strategy to realize opportunity
Suncor's tactical water strategy for oil sands and
in situ has resulted in a major improvement in
water efficiency. All the projects executed
reduced water use or make large quantities of
water available for reuse.
Suncor has been a leader in improving
collaboration among industry peers through
organizations such as COSIA.
Estimated
timeframe
Please explain
Current-up
to 1 year
The improvement in water efficiency essentially allows Suncor to
consistently use less than half of our annual water license
allotment from the Athabasca River.
>6 years
Suncor's own water R&D as well as the technology sharing by 13
oil sands companies on water R&D is laying the foundation for
further breakthroughs for the region on environmental
performance. For water alone there have been 145 technology
contributions with an estimated value of $184M.
W4.1b
Please choose the option that best explains why water does not present your organization with any opportunities that have the potential to provide
substantive benefit
Primary reason
Please explain
W4.1c
Please choose the option that best explains why you do not know if water presents your organization with any opportunities that have the potential to
provide substantive benefit
27
Primary reason
Please explain
Further Information
Module: Accounting
Page: W5. Facility Level Water Accounting (I)
W5.1
Water withdrawals: for the reporting year, please complete the table below with water accounting data for all facilities included in your answer to W3.2a
Facility reference
number
Country
River basin
Facility name
Total water
withdrawals
(megaliters/year) at
this facility
How does the
total water
withdrawals
at this facility
compare to
the last
reporting
year?
Facility 1
Canada
Mackenzie
River
Oil Sands
37360
Much lower
Facility 2
Canada
Mackenzie
River
Firebag SAGD
Facility
1230
Much higher
Please explain the change if substantive
Decrease due to wastewater treatment plant starting
up in 2014 which resulted in more recycled water
and less surface water withdrawal. Also, there was a
change in how we report industrial runoff at the site
in 2014.
For this submission, we reported surface water and
industrial runoff (precipitation) volumes for the 2014
year that had not previously been reported. A large
portion of these water volumes get returned to the
environment.
28
Facility reference
number
Country
River basin
Facility name
Total water
withdrawals
(megaliters/year) at
this facility
How does the
total water
withdrawals
at this facility
compare to
the last
reporting
year?
Facility 3
Canada
Mackenzie
River
Mackay River
SAGD Facility
350
Lower
Facility 4
Canada
St.
Lawrence
Montreal
Refinery
5440
About the
same
Facility 5
Canada
St.
Lawrence
Sarnia
Refinery
35760
Much higher
Facility 6
Canada
St.
Lawrence
35230
Lower
Facility 7
Canada
St.
Lawrence
Mississauga
Lubricants
Centre
St Clair
Ethanol Plant
1040
About the
same
Facility 8
Canada
Nelson
River
Edmonton
Refinery
3790
Lower
Facility 9
Canada
Other:
Atlantic
Ocean
Terra Nova
FPSO
26200
Higher
Facility 10
United
States of
America
Mississippi
River
Commerce
City Refinery
2000
Much lower
Please explain the change if substantive
Production was lower in 2014 than in 2013 so less
water demand from operations for make-up water.
Even though there were more workers on site in
2014 compared to 2013, total water withdrawal was
about the same, partly due to replacement of
sanitation equipment at the main office with low-flow
equipment.
Shutdown in 2013 resulted in less water withdrawal
reported last year; Also, improvements in 2014 to
better measure the once through cooling water and
process sewer flows.
Normal variation of surface water withdrawal based
on conservative calculation methodology.
Similar production and operational activities resulted
in similar total water withdrawal as in 2013.
Less precipitation in 2014 than 2013, and in 2014
received less treated wastewater from Goldbar
Treatment Plant.
Increase in topside seawater intake (which is used
for process cooling and water injection) due to
increased FPSO operational hours and production in
2014.
Lower groundwater withdrawal in 2014 because a
well was not functional. Also, municipal water meters
were changed out in 2014 and flow had to be
estimated for part of the year - this methodology
change may result in variation of withdrawal.
29
Further Information
Page: W5. Facility Level Water Accounting (II)
W5.1a
Water withdrawals: for the reporting year, please provide withdrawal data, in megaliters per year, for the water sources used for all facilities reported in
W5.1
Facility
reference
number
Fresh
surface
water
Brackish
surface
water/seawater
Rainwater
Groundwater
(renewable)
Groundwater
(nonrenewable)
Produced/process
water
Municipal
water
Wastewater
from
another
organization
Facility 1
18650
0.00
17580
0.00
1130
0.00
0.00
0.00
Facility 2
116.3
0.00
780
0.00
330
28450
0.00
0.00
Comment
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the Oil Sands facility:
brackish surface
water/seawater,
groundwater
(renewable),
produced
water/process water,
municipal water,
wastewater from
another organization.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the Firebag facility:
brackish surface
water/seawater,
groundwater
(renewable),
municipal water,
wastewater from
30
Facility
reference
number
Fresh
surface
water
Brackish
surface
water/seawater
Rainwater
Groundwater
(renewable)
Groundwater
(nonrenewable)
Produced/process
water
Municipal
water
Wastewater
from
another
organization
Facility 3
17.13
0.00
10.71
0.00
320.65
4410.40
0.00
0.00
Facility 4
4360.73
0.00
875.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
200.47
0.00
Facility 5
31070.57
0.00
4498.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
190.90
0.00
Comment
another organization.
Firebag did receive
1010 megalitres of
treated wastewater
from our own Oil
Sands Facility in
2014.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the Mackay River
facility: brackish
surface
water/seawater,
groundwater
(renewable),
municipal water,
wastewater from
another organization.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the Montreal
Refinery: brackish
surface
water/seawater,
groundwater
(renewable and nonrenewable), produced
water/process water,
wastewater from
another organization.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
31
Facility
reference
number
Fresh
surface
water
Brackish
surface
water/seawater
Rainwater
Groundwater
(renewable)
Groundwater
(nonrenewable)
Produced/process
water
Municipal
water
Wastewater
from
another
organization
Facility 6
33720
0.00
1410
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
0.00
Facility 7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1036.27
0.00
Comment
the Sarnia Refinery:
brackish surface
water/seawater,
groundwater
(renewable and nonrenewable), produced
water/process water,
wastewater from
another organization.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the Mississauga
Lubricants facility:
brackish surface
water/seawater,
groundwater
(renewable and nonrenewable), produced
water/process water,
wastewater from
another organization.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the St Clair Ethanol
facility: fresh surface
water, brackish
surface
water/seawater,
rainwater,
groundwater
(renewable and nonrenewable), produced
water/process water,
32
Facility
reference
number
Fresh
surface
water
Brackish
surface
water/seawater
Rainwater
Groundwater
(renewable)
Groundwater
(nonrenewable)
Produced/process
water
Municipal
water
Wastewater
from
another
organization
Facility 8
2185.37
0.00
286.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
30
1287.64
Facility 9
0.00
26185.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
5020.76
10.58
0.00
Facility 10
0.00
0.00
90
0.00
320
0.00
1590
0.00
Comment
wastewater from
another organization.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the Edmonton
Refinery: brackish
surface
water/seawater,
groundwater
(renewable and nonrenewable), produced
water/process water.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the Terra Nova
FPSO: Fresh surface
water, rainwater,
groundwater
(renewable and nonrenewable),
wastewater from
another organization.
The following are not
applicable water
withdrawal sources to
the Commerce City
Refinery: fresh
surface water,
brackish surface
water/seawater,
groundwater
(renewable),
produced
33
Facility
reference
number
Fresh
surface
water
Brackish
surface
water/seawater
Rainwater
Groundwater
(renewable)
Groundwater
(nonrenewable)
Produced/process
water
Municipal
water
Wastewater
from
another
organization
Comment
water/process water,
wastewater from
another organization.
W5.2
Water discharge: for the reporting year, please complete the table below with water accounting data for all facilities included in your answer to W3.2a
Facility reference number
Total water discharged
(megaliters/year) at this
facility
How does the total water discharged at
this facility compare to the last reporting
year?
Please explain the change if substantive
W5.2a
Water discharge: for the reporting year, please provide water discharge data, in megaliters per year, by destination for all facilities reported in W5.2
Facility reference
number
Fresh surface
water
Municipal
Treatment Plant
Seawater
Groundwater
Facility 1
9920
0.00
0.00
0.00
Facility 2
700
0.00
0.00
0.00
Comment
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
34
Facility reference
number
Fresh surface
water
Municipal
Treatment Plant
Seawater
Groundwater
Facility 3
29.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
Facility 4
4972.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
Facility 5
35760.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
Facility 6
28350
0.00
0.00
0.00
Facility 7
110.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
Facility 8
1160.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
Facility 9
0.00
0.00
18249.47
0.00
Facility 10
1160
0.00
0.00
0.00
Comment
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: fresh surface water, municipal treatment plant,
groundwater.
The following water discharge points are not applicable for this
facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater.
W5.3
Water consumption: for the reporting year, please provide water consumption data for all facilities reported in W3.2a
Facility
reference
number
Facility 1
Consumption
(megaliters/year)
How does this
compare to the
last reporting
year?
27440
Much lower
Please explain the change if substantive
The wastewater treatment plant became operational in April 2014 which allowed Oil Sands to recycle
35
Facility
reference
number
Consumption
(megaliters/year)
How does this
compare to the
last reporting
year?
Facility 2
1536.30
Much lower
Facility 3
319.12
Much lower
Facility 4
463.81
Much lower
Facility 5
0.00
About the same
Facility 6
6880
Much lower
Facility 7
Facility 8
925.57
2628.95
About the same
Higher
Facility 9
7946.48
Much higher
Facility 10
840
Much lower
Please explain the change if substantive
more water and therefore withdraw less water.
Firebag's total water withdrawals were similar to 2013, however, in 2014 precipitation (runoff) water used
for ice road building and road dust suppression was reported as being returned to the environment while
in 2013 this volume was not reported as being returned to the environment - therefore the lower overall
consumption value in 2014.
A decrease in production at Mackay River resulted in a decrease in water withdrawal. Also, more
precipitation (runoff) from the landfill stormwater pond met pump-off criteria and was returned to the
environment.
Montreal Refinery was able to minimize evaporative losses and reduce water handling of surface water
used for hydrostatic testing of crude oil storage tanks. Also, even though there were more workers on site
in 2014 than in 2013, replacement of old sanitary equipment at the main office with low-flow equipment
helped to lower consumption.
Similar water withdrawals and returns as in 2013.
Due to combination of slightly lower total water withdrawal and slightly higher water returned volume,
both of which are within normal annual variability based on calculation methodology.
Similar production/operation and water withdrawals and discharge volumes as in 2013.
Much more water recycled/reused in 2014, resulting in a lower water consumption volume in 2014.
Increase of operational hours and production on the FPSO in 2014 compared to 2013 resulted in
proportional increase in water consumption.
Much lower consumption at Commerce City due to less groundwater and municipal water withdrawals in
2014 while still discharging similar volumes of water back to the environment.
W5.4
For all facilities reported in W3.2a what proportion of their water accounting data has been externally verified?
36
Water aspect
%
verification
Water withdrawals- total
volumes
76-100
Water withdrawalsvolume by sources
76-100
Water discharges- total
volumes
Not verified
Water dischargesvolume by destination
Water dischargesvolume by treatment
method
Water discharge quality
data- quality by
standard effluent
parameters
Water consumptiontotal volume
Not verified
What standard and methodology was used?
This data is assured by Deloitte & Touche LLP as part of the publication of Suncor's 2015 Report on Sustainability. The
assurance statement issued by Deloitte & Touche LLP can be found here:
http://sustainability.suncor.com/2015/en/performance/performance-data.aspx#assurance (Assurance letter will be
available July 8, 2015)
This data is assured by Deloitte & Touche LLP as part of the publication of Suncor's 2015 Report on Sustainability. The
assurance statement issued by Deloitte & Touche LLP can be found here:
http://sustainability.suncor.com/2015/en/performance/performance-data.aspx#assurance (Assurance letter will be
available July 8, 2015)
Water withdrawal data is assured by Deloitte & Touche LLP as part of the publication of Suncor's 2015 Report on
Sustainability. In addition, all other water consumption data including total water discharge and recycling/reuse are also
reviewed by Deloitte & Touche LLP.
This data is not subject to assurance by a third-party independent assurer but does undergo internal review as part of
our quality assurance for publication in our Report on Sustainability.
Not verified
This data is not subject to assurance by a third-party independent assurer but does undergo internal review as part of
our quality assurance for publication in our Report on Sustainability.
Not verified
This data is not subject to assurance by a third-party independent assurer but does undergo internal review as part of
our quality assurance for publication in our Report on Sustainability.
Not verified
Water withdrawal data is assured by Deloitte & Touche LLP as part of the publication of Suncor's 2015 Report on
Sustainability. In addition, all other water consumption data including total water discharge and recycling/reuse are also
reviewed by Deloitte & Touche LLP.
Further Information
Module: Response
Page: W6. Governance and Strategy
W6.1
Who has the highest level of direct responsibility for water within your organization and how frequently are they briefed?
37
Highest level of
direct responsibility
for water issues
Senior
Manager/Officer
Frequency of
briefings on
water issues
Scheduled monthly
Comment
In 2013 Suncor developed a new Strategic Issues Management Process (SIMP) for the purpose of enhancing
communication to executive leaders. Issue Managers have been assigned to strategic risk areas and are paired with
an Executive Leadership Team (ELT) Member. The issue manager is responsible for creating & maintaining briefing
documents for their ELT member. This new process was rolled out in 2014 and includes monthly briefings to ELT
member.
W6.2
Is water management integrated into your business strategy?
Yes
W6.2a
Please choose the option(s) below that best explain how water has positively influenced your business strategy
Influence of water on
business strategy
Alignment of public policy
positions with water
stewardship goals
Exploration of water
Please explain
The oil sands operating companies have been working together for the past 2.5 years in the development of a water management
framework with public policy makers to resolve regulatory uncertainty around water return guidelines for the industry
We've been working to develop tools that would allow for water valuation. The goal is to be able to include a true value of water
38
Influence of water on
business strategy
valuation practices
Publicly demonstrated our
commitment to water
Please explain
for all projects. Currently a value of water is assigned in project development costs, while this value is more than pumping and
treatment costs, it is being set based on professional judgment not a comprehensive calculation. Suncor is also developing tools
that look specifically at the trade-off between water and other environmental issues, i.e.energy/GHGs.
Suncor established Sustainability goals back in 2007 and one is stated for Water. The publicly stated goal with a performance
target has demonstrated our commitment to water. The current suite of goals expire in 2015, and Suncor has started the process
for development of post 2015 goals late in 2012, that will continue to build on the progress made in water management and
continue to align with our Mission, Vision, and Values.
W6.2b
Please choose the option(s) below that best explains how water has negatively influenced your business strategy
Influence of
water on
business
strategy
Increased capital
expenditure
Please explain
Suncor has had to increase its CAPEX and OPEX on water management. The tactical water strategy for oil sands has CAPEX in the range
of $400M to reduce stored water on site by ~130 Mm3. While the development of the strategy has afforded Suncor opportunities for cost
savings and innovation, the bottom line is that Suncor has increased expenditures.
W6.2c
Please choose the option that best explains why your organization does not integrate water management into its business strategy and discuss any
future plans to do so
39
Primary reason
Please explain
W6.3
Does your organization have a water policy that sets out clear goals and guidelines for action?
Yes
W6.3a
Please select the content that best describes your water policy (tick all that apply)
Content
Publicly available
Company-wide
Performance standards for
direct operations
Incorporated within group
environmental, sustainabiilty
or EHS policy
Please explain why this content is included
In 2007 Suncor established a publicly disclosed sustainability water goal for the corporation. Publicly stated goals drive
changes in work place culture and behaviors when combined with processes for goal translation, goal stewardship,
development of water risk assessments and tools; and asset development execution models that include environmental net
effect evaluation prior to concept selection.
W6.4
How does your organization's water-related capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) during the most recent reporting period
compare to the previous reporting period?
40
Water CAPEX
(+/- %
change)
Water OPEX
(+/- %
change)
Motivation for these changes
Suncor's accounting system is not setup organizationally to attribute CAPEX and OPEX figures to water from across the
company that meets the definitions provided by CDP in the guidance document. As such, any numbers Suncor would produce
would be an estimate subject to significant error and not useful for a year over year comparison.
Further Information
Page: W7. Compliance
W7.1
Was your organization subject to any penalties, fines and/or enforcement orders for breaches of abstraction licenses, discharge consents or other water
and wastewater related regulations in the reporting year?
Yes, not significant
W7.1a
Please describe the penalties, fines and/or enforcement orders for breaches of abstraction licenses, discharge consents or other water and wastewater
related regulations and your plans for resolving them
41
Facility
name
Commerce
City
Incident
Fine
Incident description
Consent decree related to compensation for alleged Natural Resource
Damage (NRD) in exchange for a release of Suncor from any and all NRD
liability associated with contamination discharged from the Commerce City
Refinery related to the release of hydrocarbons into Sand Creek.
Frequency of
occurrence in
reporting year
1
Financial
impact
1887000
Currency
USD($)
Incident
resolution
Fine has
been paid
W7.1b
What proportion of your total facilities/operations are associated with the incidents listed in W7.1a
10%
W7.1c
Please indicate the total financial impacts of all incidents reported in W7.1a as a proportion of total operating expenditure (OPEX) for the reporting year.
Please also provide a comparison of this proportion compared to the previous reporting year
Impact as % of OPEX
0.05
Comparison to last year
Much lower
Further Information
Page: W8. Targets and Initiatives
42
W8.1
Do you have any company wide targets (quantitative) or goals (qualitative) related to water?
Yes, targets only
W8.1a
Please complete the following table with information on company wide quantitative targets (ongoing or reached completion during the reporting period)
and an indication of progress made
Category of
target
Reduction in
consumptive
volumes
Motivation
Water
stewardship
Quantitative unit of
measurement
Description of target
Reduce fresh water consumption (the amount of
fresh water withdrawn minus the amount of water
returned to the environment) by 12% by 2015*
Other: %reduction of
freshwater consumption
(withdrawal-return)
Baseline
year
2007
Target
year
2015
Proportion of
target achieved,
% value
100%
W8.1b
Please describe any company wide qualitative goals (ongoing or reached completion during the reporting period) and your progress in achieving these
Goal
Motivation
Description of goal
Progress
43
W8.1c
Please explain why you do not have any water-related targets or goals and discuss any plans to develop these in the future
Further Information
Progress on our Water goal is updated annually in Suncor's Report on Sustainability, please review the information available at
http://sustainability.suncor.com/2015/en/goals/goals-and-progress.aspx Suncor target was to reduce fresh water consumption by 12% from 2007 value 49.3 Mm3 to
43.4 Mm3 by 2015. As of 2014 Suncor reported fresh water consumption was 30.3 Mm3 or a 39% reduction from 2007 levels. This means Suncor has achieved
322% of our water goal.
Module: Linkages/Tradeoff
Page: W9. Managing trade-offs between water and other environmental issues
W9.1
Has your organization identified any linkages or trade-offs between water and other environmental issues in its value chain?
Yes
W9.1a
Please describe the linkages or trade-offs and the related management policy or action
44
Environmental issues
Linkage
or
tradeoff
Increased water recycling/smaller water footprint
leading to more complex water treatment unit
processes leading to higher energy usage leading
to increased GHG emissions.
Tradeoff
Increased water recycling inside facility as well as in
regional water systems leading to increased land
and habitat disturbance leading to environmental
impacts.
Tradeoff
Increased water recycling degrades circulating
water quality leading to increased scaling and
corrosion rates leading to increased maintenance
and reliability costs.
Tradeoff
Increased water recycling degrades circulating
water quality for oil sands extraction leading to
reduction in extraction efficiency leading to reduced
economic performance
Tradeoff
Increased water recycling degrades circulating
water quality for tailings management leading to
reduced settling performance in tailings facilities
leading to greater land disturbance.
Tradeoff
Using saline water for Oil Sands Insitu water supply
leads to lower water efficiency leading to increased
water disposal wells leading to higher energy and
land disturbance.
Tradeoff
Increased water recycling degrades circulating
water quality leading to poor water quality for
reclamation closure landscape and water return
leading to future longterm liability.
Tradeoff
Policy or action
Suncor includes requirements as part of its asset development execution model to consider net
environmental effects as well as potential social impact of development options. The objective
is to have environment, social and economics are considered prior to concept selection. Water
quality/quantity, energy/GHG, Air emissions, waste, land impacts/risks are part of the
evaluation.
Suncor includes requirements as part of its asset development execution model to consider net
environmental effects as well as potential social impact of development options. The objective
is to have environment, social and economics are considered prior to concept selection. Water
quality/quantity, energy/GHG, Air emissions, waste, land impacts/risks are part of the
evaluation.
Suncor includes requirements as part of its asset development execution model to consider net
environmental effects as well as potential social impact of development options. The objective
is to have environment, social and economics are considered prior to concept selection. Water
quality/quantity, energy/GHG, Air emissions, waste, land impacts/risks are part of the
evaluation.
Suncor includes requirements as part of its asset development execution model to consider net
environmental effects as well as potential social impact of development options. The objective
is to have environment, social and economics are considered prior to concept selection. Water
quality/quantity, energy/GHG, Air emissions, waste, land impacts/risks are part of the
evaluation.
Suncor includes requirements as part of its asset development execution model to consider net
environmental effects as well as potential social impact of development options. The objective
is to have environment, social and economics are considered prior to concept selection. Water
quality/quantity, energy/GHG, Air emissions, waste, land impacts/risks are part of the
evaluation.
Suncor includes requirements as part of its asset development execution model to consider net
environmental effects as well as potential social impact of development options. The objective
is to have environment, social and economics are considered prior to concept selection. Water
quality/quantity, energy/GHG, Air emissions, waste, land impacts/risks are part of the
evaluation.
Suncor includes requirements as part of its asset development execution model to consider net
environmental effects as well as potential social impact of development options. The objective
is to have environment, social and economics are considered prior to concept selection. Water
quality/quantity, energy/GHG, Air emissions, waste, land impacts/risks are part of the
45
Environmental issues
Linkage
or
tradeoff
Policy or action
evaluation.
Further Information
Module: Sign Off
Page: Sign Off
W10.1
Please provide the following information for the person that has signed off (approved) your CDP water response
Name
Sonia Gupta
Job title
Manager Sustainability Disclosure
Corresponding job category
Environment/Sustainability manager
W10.2
Addressing water risks effectively, in many instances, requires collective action. CDP would like to support you in finding potential partners that are also
working to tackle water challenges in the river basins you report against. Please select if your organization would like CDP to transfer your publicly
disclosed risk and impact drivers and response strategy data from questions W1.4a, W3.2b, W3.2c, W4.1a and W8.1b to the United Nations Global
Compact Water Action Hub.
46
No
Further Information
CDP 2015 Water 2015 Information Request
47