CDP. Module: Introduction. Page: W0. Introduction. CDP 2016 Water 2016 Information Request W0.1. Introduction

Transcription

1 CDP CDP 2016 Water 2016 Information Request 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 and diesel fuel. Across Canada and in Colorado, Suncor refines crude oil and markets the company's refined products to industrial, commercial, and retail customers. In Canada, its network of more than 1475 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 lubricant-based 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 renewable energy sources. Suncor has six wind power projects in operation with a total capacity of 287 megawatts. 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. Period for which data is reported Thu 01 Jan Thu 31 Dec

2 W0.3 Reporting boundary Please indicate the category that describes the reporting boundary for companies, entities, or groups for which water-related s are reported. Companies, entities or groups over which financial control is exercised W0.4 Exclusions Are there any geographies, facilities or types of water inputs/outputs within this boundary which are not in your disclosure? No W0.4a Exclusions Please report the exclusions in the following table Exclusion Please explain why you have made the exclusion Further Information 2

3 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 Please explain Sufficient amounts of good quality freshwater available for use Sufficient amounts of recycled, brackish and/or produced water available for use Vital for operations Vital for operations Important Important Water is an integral component of Suncor's operations to extract, upgrade and refine our oil & gas products. Our operations use fresh water, saline water, recycled wastewater, and industrial storm water run-off for water make-up. In 2009, we set a corporate water goal to reduce our fresh water use by 12% by We are excited to say that we have surpassed that goal by achieving a 27% reduction of fresh water use compared to our 2007 baseline. Suncor has been increasing the amount of water recycling/reuse at its major oil sands operating facility. Approximately 85% of the water used by our mining and extraction operations is recycled tailings water. Through a focused oil sands water strategy, we have reduced our fresh water withdrawal by over 58% since Produced water recycling is 96% at our Firebag in-situ operations and 98% at our MacKay River in-situ operations well over the regulatory requirement of 90%. Our Edmonton refinery's primary water supply is reused municipal wastewater effluent from the local treatment facility. As we continue to monitor the watersheds in which we operate and understand any long-term changes, we will adapt and continue to take appropriate actions to reduce our water footprint. 3

4 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 Water aspect % of sites/facilities/operations Please explain Water withdrawals- total volumes Water withdrawalsvolume by sources Water discharges- total volumes Water discharges- volume by destination Water discharges- volume by treatment method Water discharge quality data- quality by standard effluent parameters Water consumption- total volume Facilities providing fullyfunctioning WASH services for all workers Total water withdrawal volumes are measured and monitored at our operating facilities as part of regulatory requirements, stakeholder expectations, and for sustainability reporting and disclosure. This information is used to track our progress to our corporate water goal. 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. 4

5 W1.2a 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 Higher Increased water use for refinery turn-around. Brackish surface Decreased production from Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading Lower water/seawater facility (FPSO). Rainwater Much lower Less precipitation. Groundwater - renewable 1 About the same None Groundwater - nonrenewable 2720 Much higher Increased production at our in situ facilities. Produced/process water Higher Increased production at both of Suncor s In Situ facilities to off-set water waterup Municipal supply 4266 Higher Better monitoring and metering capacity at our Lubricants facility. Wastewater from another organization 1513 Higher Increased wastewater use to offset freshwater use. Total Lower Major contributors to the overall water withdrawal are less precipitation captured and reduced use of seawater due to lower production for our FPSO. 5

6 W1.2b Water discharges: for the reporting year, please provide total water discharge data by destination, across your operations Destination Quantity (megaliters/year) How does total water discharged to this destination compare to the last reporting year? Comment Fresh surface water Lower Brackish surface water/seawater Lower Groundwater 0 About the same Municipal/industrial wastewater treatment plant 0 About the same Wastewater for another organization Total Lower Suncor changed the operation of a storm water management pond at our St. Clair Ethanol facility from continuous discharge in 2014 to intermittent discharge in There was a decrease in sea water return due to decreased operational hours and production of Suncor s East Coast Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading facility. The overall decrease in water discharge is mainly due to decreases in fresh surface water and sea water discharges as noted above. 6

7 W1.2c Water consumption: for the reporting year, please provide total water consumption data, across your operations Consumption (megaliters/year) How does this consumption figure compare to the last reporting year? Comment Lower Overall decrease in water consumption is a result of numerous factors including: additional wastewater recycling at oil sands base plant, turnarounds at our refineries. W1.3 Do you request your suppliers to report on their water use, risks and/or management? 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 7

8 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 Please explain Important but not an immediate business priority From a materiality perspective, our sustainability focus is on carbon mitigation across the enterprise and water management within the watersheds in which we operate. We recognize that some of our material commodity inputs (e.g. natural gas, hydrogen) and agricultural feedstock (e.g. corn for ethanol production) may need to better assessed for their water risks we will further evaluate those as part of our next phase of sustainability integration into our business. W1.4 Has your organization experienced any detrimental s related to water in the reporting year? Yes W1.4a Please describe the detrimental s experienced by your organization related to water in the reporting year Country River basin Impact indicator Impact Description of Length of Overall financial Response strategy Description of response strategy Canada Mackenzie River Reg-Unclear and/or unstable regulations on Other: Future long term Provincial and Federal government have not proactively addressed >5 years Financial s cannot be quantified at this Alignment of public policy positions with Suncor in coordination with other major operators in the 8

9 Country River basin Impact indicator Impact Description of Length of Overall financial Response strategy Description of response strategy water allocation and wastewater discharge financial liability guidance or regulations around return of oil sands process affected water back to the Athabasca 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. time as all risk are in the future 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 watershed have been having technical and policy discussions at the provincial level in relations to the Tailings Management Framework and integrated water management to progress on this issue. Without certainty on wastewater discharge regulations, sustainable water management is more difficult. Canada Mackenzie River Reg-Statutory water withdrawal limits/changes to water allocation Rep-Negative media coverage Brand damage Several of our stakeholder groups remain concerned about our water allocation from the Athabasca River during low flow periods. The Government of Alberta released the LARP Surface Water Quantity Management Framework (SWQMF) in 2015 (to manage and Ongoing Financial s cannot be quantified independently. Alignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals Engagement with public policy makers Engagement with other stakeholders Suncor in coordination with other major operators in the watershed have been having technical and policy discussions at the provincial level in relations to the Tailings Management Framework and integrated water management to 9

10 Country River basin Impact indicator Impact Description of Length of Overall financial Response strategy Description of response strategy United States of America Mississippi River Reg-Regulation of discharge quality/volumes leading to higher compliance costs Reg-Regulatory uncertainty Higher operating costs restrict industry water withdraw from the river during low flow events. Suncor's water license for the Oil Sands Base facility (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 water withdraw rate by 50%. At the newer Fort Hills facility Suncor will manage water as determined by the LARP SWQMF and will reduce withdrawals to zero if required. Emerging State and Federal water quality regulations will require improvements to the effluent quality discharged from refinery operations with a particular focus on metals and nutrients. Emerging regulations are ing both municipal (POTW s) and industrial (refining, mining and power 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. Operating and Maintenance Expenditures between $5M and $15M per year. in the river basin Promote best practice and awareness Engagement with public policy makers Increased investment in new technology progress on this issue. Without certainty on wastewater discharge regulations, sustainable water management is more difficult. Suncor has dedicated a significant amount of time and resources over the past 5 years to developing a solution to comply with the emerging regulations. During this time, the quality of water discharged from the refinery has been continually improving. Ongoing discussions and collaboration with 10

11 Country River basin Impact indicator Impact Description of Length of Overall financial Response strategy Description of response strategy 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 other environmental receptors by generating increased GHG emissions or sending waste offsite for disposal. 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 s related to water in the reporting year and any plans you have to investigate this in the future Primary reason Future plans Further Information 11

12 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 Coverage Scale Please explain Comprehensive company-wide risk assessment Direct operations All facilities and some suppliers Suncor completed a comprehensive water risk assessment for all operations in 2013 to assess risks from changing regulations, stakeholder expectations, watershed issues, and operational water use. Suncor used this information to inform our facility specific water strategies and corporate goal prioritization. Suncor has a Strategic Issues Management Process (SIMP) that captures and respond to rapid developing water risks. Suncor uses multiple tools to flag water risks and assesses potential s. These tools include our Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) system; Materiality Review for the completion of our annual GRI G4 report; and SIMP. 12

13 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 Geographic scale How far into the future are risks considered? Comment Every two years River basin >6 years We assess our material near term water risks at a site-level as part of our Enterprise Risk management process. Strategic longer term risks are stewarded on a semi-annual basis through our strategic Issues Management Process (SIMP) that has VP-level oversight. We also participate in regional watershed initiatives to understand long-term watershed risks around water use and quality to inform our own corporate water strategy. 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 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 any new asset development. The purpose of sustainability integration into ADEM is to ensure environmental and social risks are identified as part of the project definition, options are evaluated to mitigate any risks through the concept selection process, and any recommendations are incorporated before the final concept selection. 13

14 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 Please explain how these methods are used in your risk assessment IPIECA Global Water Tool for Oil & Gas Other: Deloitte Water Risk Assessment Suncor used the IPIECA Global Water tool for Oil & Gas to identify which of our operations are at risk from a water quantity or quality perspective. We then conducted a detailed water risk evaluation for all our operations on operational water use, watershed risks, regulatory, and reputational risks. This was facilitated by Deloitte consulting and consisted of 1) site and corporate SME interviews to document risks at each of our facilities, 2) consolidation of common risks / opportunities, 3) quantification of risks according to Enterprise Risk Management process and 4) ranking / prioritization of common themes. This helped to inform a corporate water strategy and formulation of our future focus areas. 14

15 W2.6 Which of the following contextual issues are always factored into your organization's water risk assessments? Issues Choose option Please explain 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 Current implications of water on your key commodities/raw materials Current status of ecosystems and habitats at a local level Current river basin management plans Current access to fully-functioning WASH services for all employees Not relevant, 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. Our strategic issues management process identifies changes to water policy and regulations that are further evaluated for operational / business s. 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. We recognize that some of our material commodity inputs (e.g. natural gas, hydrogen) and agricultural feedstock (e.g. corn for ethanol production) may need to be better assessed for their water risks we will further evaluate those as part of our next phase of sustainability integration into our business. Suncor monitors and assesses ecosystem s in the watersheds in which it operates in on a local level. For some operational sites there is greater and more extensive basin monitoring. In the Athabasca watershed, Suncor contributed to a regional monitoring of cumulative effects program that spends $50M dollars per year monitoring on the ecosystem. Suncor is a member of a number of watershed planning and advisory committees (WPACs) that evaluates long terms changes to the watershed and advises on potential management actions. Within the Athabasca watershed, Suncor is currently participating in a long-term Athabasca Watershed Basin Initiatives led by WaterSMART Solutions Ltd. Suncor via COSIA (Canada s 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. Suncor has participated in and will continue to participate in a Sustainable Water Management in the Athabasca River Initiative being led by WaterSMART Solutions Ltd. For all of Suncor's sites we have WASH services for all employees. Estimates of future changes in water Suncor has evaluated water availability using IPIECA Global Water Tool for Oil and Gas for almost all 15

16 Issues Choose option Please explain availability at a local level facilities that we operate. Estimates of future potential regulatory changes at a local level Estimates of future potential stakeholder conflicts at a local level Estimates of future implications of water on your key commodities/raw materials Estimates of future potential changes in the status of ecosystems and habitats at a local level Scenario analysis of availability of sufficient quantity and quality of water relevant for your operations at a local level Scenario analysis of regulatory and/or tariff changes at a local level Scenario analysis of stakeholder conflicts concerning water resources at a local level Scenario analysis of implications of water on your key commodities/raw materials Scenario analysis of potential changes in the status of ecosystems and habitats at a local level Other Suncor monitors future potential regulatory changes at the federal, provincial/state, and municipal level to understand how these changes could operations. Suncor also monitors regulations in other jurisdictions and evaluates potential s, timing and risk. Suncor has stakeholder relation teams for all operating facilities that work to understand issues and s. 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 a regional monitoring of cumulative effects program. ). These programs are trying to assess changes in the system and predict future s 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 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 in a recent risk assessment. Suncor includes stakeholder scenarios with regards to water resources at the local level. These inputs are more difficult to estimate the 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. 16

17 W2.7 Which of the following stakeholders are always factored into your organization's water risk assessments? Stakeholder Choose option Please explain Customers Employees Investors Local communities NGOs Other water users at a local level Regulators River basin management authorities Statutory special interest groups at a local level Suppliers Water utilities/suppliers at a local level Other Not evaluated 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 evaluation of employee on execution of water management on-site. This 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 in Suncor's water risk assessment for the majority of our operational sites. NGOs have been identified and 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 categories. Regulators have been identified and 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 in Suncor's overall water risk assessment. Water utilities/suppliers have been identified and 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. 17

18 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 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 and supply chain 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; To define substantive change for the purpose of this assessment; an economic value of $10M was used this includes direct financial costs and lost opportunity value (LOV). 18

19 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 this represents of total operations company-wide Country River basin Number of facilities exposed to water risk Proportion of total operations (%) Comment Canada Mackenzie River Canada St. Lawrence Canada Nelson River Canada United States of America Other: Atlantic Ocean Mississippi River These facilities make up our primary oil sands operations and include our oil sands 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, Montreal Sulphur Plant, Mississauga Lubricants Centre and our Ethanol Plant. This facility is one of the refineries 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 in our Refining & Marketing operations; Commerce City Refinery. 19

20 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 River basin Financial reporting metric Proportion of chosen metric that could be affected within the river basin Comment Canada Mackenzie River % global production capacity Less than 1% No comment Canada St. Lawrence % global production capacity Less than 1% No comment Canada Nelson River % global production capacity Less than 1% No comment Canada Other: Atlantic Ocean % global production capacity Less than 1% No comment United States of America Mississippi River % global production capacity Less than 1% No comment W3.2c Please list the inherent water risks that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure, the potential to your direct operations and the strategies to mitigate them Country River basin Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of potential financial Response strategy Costs of response strategy Details of strategy and costs Canada Mackenzie River Regulatory- Unclear and/or unstable regulations on water allocation and wastewater discharge Higher operating costs There is currently a lack of clarity around regulatory requirements for return of oil sands process affected water >6 years Probable Medium 20 Engagement with public policy makers Low Suncor along with 6 other operators has been engaging both Federal and Provincial technical and policy leaders for

21 Country River basin Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of potential financial Response strategy Costs of response strategy Details of strategy and costs (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 ability to manage both quantity and quality of water during operational phase of the projects years to drive discussion towards certainty of regulatory tools for water return to the Athabasca River. The cost of this effort is low. Suncor and the other operators through COSIA (Canada s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance) have also been executing projects that will provide technical input into development of policy framework. based effluent limits (Best Available Technology Economically Achievable - BATEA concepts). All this work is being developed jointly by the majority of the operators in

22 Country River basin Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of potential financial Response strategy Costs of response strategy Details of strategy and costs Canada Mackenzie River Regulatory- Unclear and/or unstable regulations on water allocation and wastewater discharge Higher operating costs The main oil sands base plant had 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 Infrastructure investment High the region. Suncor portion of the overall cost is less than $500k for these project. 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 There are roughly 18 projects covered by the 3 phases that are expected to 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 22

23 Country River basin Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of potential financial Response strategy Costs of response strategy Details of strategy and costs Canada Canada St. Lawrence Nelson River Physical- Increased water stress Other: Physical - Wastewater disposal risk Higher operating costs Higher operating costs Montreal and Mississauga operations using the IPIECA Global Water Tool scored and respectively on mean annual relative water stress index. This indicates there is a greater potential for water related risks. The potential of these risks will likely translate to higher operational costs. >6 years Unknown Unknown >6 years Probable High Other: Problem Definition Other: Problem Definition Lowmedium Low- Medium investment. The execution of this strategy has resulted in a reduction of oil sands water withdrawal by 58% since Suncor is undertaking a process that provides correct definitionassessment of this water risk. As this process progresses understanding of the potential issues, the and mitigation will be determined. Costs associated with definition have been estimated at $2million for these two facilities. Suncor is undertaking a process that provides correct 23

24 Country River basin Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of potential financial Response strategy Costs of response strategy Details of strategy and costs United States of America Mississippi River Physical- Projected water stress Regulatory- Regulation of discharge quality/volumes leading to higher Higher operating costs Commerce City refinery operation scored 4.0 on mean annual relative water stress index using the IPIECA Global Water Tool. This 1-3 years Probable High Establish site-specific targets Infrastructure investment Medium definitionassessment of this water risk. As this process progresses understanding of the potential issues, the and mitigation will be determined. To date cost has been low and focused on understanding geoenvironmental 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 24

25 Country River basin Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of potential financial Response strategy Costs of response strategy Details of strategy and costs compliance costs indicates there is greater potential for water related risks. The potential of these risks will likely lead to higher operating costs in the long term. The site is also making improvements to the wastewater treatment system to meet incoming regulations for specific contaminates. understanding of the potential issues, the and mitigation will be determined. Costs associated with definition have been estimated at $6million for the facility. 25

26 W3.2d Please list the inherent water risks that could generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure, the potential to your supply chain and the strategies to mitigate them Country River basin Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of potential financial 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 26

27 Primary reason Please explain 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 27

28 W4.1a Please describe the opportunities water presents to your organization and your strategies to realize them Country or region Opportunity Strategy to realize opportunity Estimated timeframe Please explain Canada Canada Improved water efficiency Collective Action Innovation 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. Current-up to 1 year >6 years The improvement in water efficiency essentially allows Suncor to consistently use less than half of our annual water license allotment from the Athabasca River. 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 28

29 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 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 in your answer to W3.2a Facility reference number Facility 1 Facility 2 Country River basin Facility name Canada Canada Mackenzie River Mackenzie River Total water withdrawals (megaliters/year) at this facility 29 How does the total water withdrawals at this facility compare to the last reporting year? Oil Sands Much lower Firebag SAGD Facility 1470 Higher Please explain Decrease due to wastewater treatment plant starting up in 2014 which resulted in more recycled water and less surface water withdrawal. 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. Production was higher in 2015 than in 2014 so more water demand from operations for make-up water. Mackenzie Mackay River Facility 3 Canada 560 Higher River SAGD Facility Facility 4 Canada St. Montreal 5232 About the same Similar production and operational activities resulted in

30 Facility reference number Facility 5 Facility 6 Facility 7 Facility 8 Facility 9 Facility 10 Facility 11 Country River basin Facility name Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada United States of America Canada Total water withdrawals (megaliters/year) at this facility How does the total water withdrawals at this facility compare to the last reporting year? Please explain Lawrence Refinery similar total water withdrawal as in St. Lawrence St. Lawrence St. Lawrence Nelson River Other: Atlantic Ocean Mississippi River St. Lawrence Sarnia Refinery Mississauga Lubricants Centre St Clair Ethanol Plant Edmonton Refinery Terra Nova FPSO Commerce City Refinery Montreal Sulphur Plant About the same Much higher 1080 About the same 4157 Higher About the same Similar production and operational activities resulted in similar total water withdrawal as in In July 2014 we discovered that 1 of the flow metres was not working correctly and we were under recording the amount of municipal water used. It was fixed in August, at which point the values went back to normal. The difference between 2014 and 2015 is due to 7 months of inaccurate numbers in Similar production and operational activities resulted in similar total water withdrawal as in The increase in water withdrawal from river is directly related to the higher water consumption. There were two turnarounds and operational issues that ed water consumption at the Edmonton Refinery last year. The evaporation loss in the cooling tower was a lot higher due to dry weather in the region last year, which contributes to majority of the consumption increase. Similar production and operational activities resulted in similar total water withdrawal as in Higher Production increased requiring more water. 160 This is our first year of measurement Further Information 30

31 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 Comment Facility Facility Facility 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 another organization. Firebag did receive 1010 megalitres of treated wastewater from our own Oil Sands Facility in The following are not applicable 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 Comment Facility Facility Facility 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 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

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 Facility Facility Facility 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, 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

34 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 Facility Facility 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 water/process water, wastewater from another organization. The following are not applicable water withdrawal sources to the Montreal Sulphur Plant: brackish surface water/seawater, groundwater (renewable), Groundwater (nonrenewable), produced water/process water, wastewater from another organization. 34

35 W5.2 Water discharge: for the reporting year, please complete the table below with water accounting data for all facilities 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 Facility Much lower The wastewater treatment plant became operational in April 2014 which allowed Oil Sands to recycle more water and therefore withdraw less water. Facility About the same Similar water discharge as in Facility 3 30 About the same Similar water discharge as in Facility About the same Similar water discharge as in Facility About the same Similar water discharge as in Facility About the same Similar water discharge as in Facility Higher This facility does not separate the storm water from process effluent therefore an increase in storm water will increase the water discharged. In addition to increased storm water, the operation of the water management pond was changed in 2015 to continuous discharge. In 2014 the discharge was frequently closed. Facility About the same Although more water consumed the water returned remained about the same as the evaporation loss in the cooling tower was higher due to dry weather in the region. Facility Much higher East Coast Terra Nova incurred increased maintenance. Facility Higher Increase in production resulted in more water consumption and return. Facility 11 0 This is our first year of measurement 35

36 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/industrial wastewater treatment plant Seawater Groundwater Wastewater for another organization Comment Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater, wastewater for another organization. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater, wastewater for another organization. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater, wastewater for another organization. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater, wastewater for another organization. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater, wastewater for another organization. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater, wastewater for another organization. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater, wastewater for another organization. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: municipal treatment plant, seawater, groundwater, wastewater for another organization. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for this facility: fresh surface water, municipal treatment plant, groundwater. Facility The following water discharge points are not applicable for 36