Rethink Campaigns

Tar Sands Campaign Organizer Appointed to Alberta Energy Regulator

Given the economic significance of the Alberta oil industry to all of Canada, the credibility and impartiality of the Alberta Energy Regulator is important.

Recently, the Alberta Energy Regulator appointed a new director: Ed Whittingham. For his bio as posted at the AER's web-site, click here.  Not mentioned in Mr. Whittingham's bio is that he has a long history of involvement in activism to sabotage the Alberta oil and natural gas industries.

According to the Order in Council pertaining to his appointment, Mr. Whittingham is to serve on the board of directors of the Alberta Energy Regulator for a period of five years during which he will receive $76,500 per year plus $750 per day to a maximum of $3,000 per month. All in, that's a minimum of $382,500 over five years, and a maximum of $562,500. Mr. Whittingham was appointed to the AER at the recommendation of the current Minister for Energy, Margaret McQuaig-Boyd.

For more than a decade (2005 - 2017), Mr. Whittingham was employed at The Pembina Institute and between 2011 and 2017, he was the Executive Director. Pembina presents itself as an independent, energy think tank and has produced numerous publications on a wide range of topics: geothermal, solar, wind, transportation planning, carbon pricing and more.

Pembina Institute has also been quietly involved in a U.S.-funded effort called The Tar Sands Campaign.  For many years, the strategy of this campaign was not entirely clear. But now it is.  As CBC has reported, this campaign takes credit for "land-locking" Canadian oil, keeping it out of overseas markets where it could fetch higher prices per barrel.

Lacking pipelines to the ocean, Canadian oil producers are forced to sell into the United States at a steep discount, causing Canada to lose billions of dollars in royalties and other revenue. Scotiabank estimated that for 2018, the lack of pipelines and access to overseas markets cost Canada more than $10 BILLION.

During his years at The Pembina Institute, the institute and its sister organization, The Pembina Foundation for Environmental Research and Education, received at least $8 million (US$7.4 million) from the U.S. funders of The Tar Sands Campaign and other activism against the Canadian oil and natural gas industry:

• US$ 3 million from the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
• US$1.7 million from Oak Foundation
• US$ 1 million from Tides Foundation - This was explicitly for The Tar Sands Campaign
• US$ 1 million from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation
• US$200,000 from the Bullitt Foundation
• US$200,000 from Westwind Foundation (granted to the NRDC in New York, for work in conjunction with Pembina)
• US$70 000 from Wilburforce Foundation; this was specifically for activism in relation to the MacKenzie gas pipeline

For a .pdf file that compiles pages of tax returns showing 56 payments for a total of $8 million, click here (64 pages).

 Inaccurate Information

One of the problems with The Tar Sands Campaign is that the information that it provides is selective and in many cases, is inaccurate. One of the inaccuracies that this campaign has perpetuated is the false claim that producing oil from the Canadian oil sands generates "three to four times" as much greenhouse gas emissions as conventional oil.  Pembina has perpetuated this inaccuracy as shown in examples of some of Pembina's literature. 

The Tar Sands Campaign is a continuation and intensification of U.S. funded activism against Canadian oil and gas that began around 2004. That year, The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, one of the main co-funders of The Tar Sands Campaign, granted $70,000 to Tides Canada Foundation to develop a "strategic plan" to address oil and gas development in British Columbia. Subsequently, Tides Canada in Vancouver received a further US$1.9 million and Tides Foundation in San Francisco received $7 million. Since then, The Tar Sands Campaign has been executed by a team of organizations funded via Tides in San Francisco, Tides Canada Foundation in Vancouver, New Venture Fund in Washington, D.C. and other organizations in Canada, the U.S. and in Europe.

To date, more than 400 payments totalling more than US$40 million have been made to finance The Tar Sands Campaign.

Rockefeller Payments to Pembina Institute

The first payment from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to Pembina Foundation was made in 2006 for $50 000.  At the time, Mr. Whittingham was apparently the Director of Consulting.  According to U.S. tax returns, that money was "to prevent the development of a pipeline and tanker port that endangers the Great Bear Rainforest protected area. Tax returns show that Rockefeller Brothers Fund paid $50,000 to Pembina Institute in both 2006 and 2007, a total of US$100 000.

When the Rockefellers first began to fund the protection of the traditional habitat of the kermode bear (now branded "the Great Spirit Bear"), their strategy made good sense. The kermode bear is of spiritual significance to First Nations people. It makes perfect sense to protect the traditional habitat of this special bear. When the Rockefellers first began to fund the protection of the habitat of the kermode bear, the goal was to set aside a small area on the north coast of B.C. which truly is the traditional habitat of this remarkable bear.  To see a map of this area in the Annual Report of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in 1999, click here. (Source: page 25).  But that's now what the Great Bear Rainforest is about anymore. 

Even though the traditional habitat of the kermode bear is only a small area on the north coast of British Columbia, the Rockefellers and the organizations that they fund now claim that the entire north coast of B.C. is the Great Bear Rainforest, and now, in the name of protecting the coast, Rockefeller-funded organizations - including Pembina Institute - claim that there can be no pipelines and no tanker traffic on the entire north coast of British Columbia. As it were, the Great Bear Rainforest has become the Great Trade Barrier to Asia. Pembina Institute is one of the many organizations that has perpetuated the false notion that the entire B.C. north coast is home to the Great Spirit Bear. For an example of this, click here, here here, or see the report Pipeline and Tanker Trouble, co-authored by Pembina Institute in 2011.

Oak Foundation

Of particular concern is the US$1.7 million that Pembina has received from Oak Foundation.

Oak is an intermediary funder as are Tides Foundation, Tides Canada and New Venture Fund. Oak has refused to disclose the origins of the funds that it has granted to organizations operating in Canada, a total equivalent of $28 million.

Another concern with the Oak Foundation is that it has substantially re-written the details of the grants that it provides to Canadian activist groups. Oak has removed wording that acknowledged an agenda to sabotage proposed pipeline projects. This was reported several years ago in The Financial Post. 

All of these considerations are relevant to Pembina Institute because during both 2011 & 2012, Oak Foundation was Pembina's #1 top funder, according to Pembina's annual financial reports.

Since 2013, Pembina Institute no longer includes a list of its funders in its annual financial reports.  This backward decline in transparency while Pembina Institute was under the direction of Ed Whittingham, is yet another concern.

The Tar Sands Campaign

In 2007, Rockefeller Brothers Fund began financing a San Francisco-based organization called Corporate Ethics International to design and execute The Tar Sands Campaign. During the early years, there was no publicly available information about this campaign. In fact, it was only discovered by accident in the course of other research. Over the years, some written information has become available, notably from three sources:

1) A Power Point presentation by The Rockefeller Brothers and other organizations.

2) The original strategy paper for the Tar Sands Campaign.

3) A series of covering letters on payments made by Tides Foundation was available at its web-site in 2013. The details in these covering letters have been reported in The Financial Post.

In the tax returns and other records of payments to fund The Tar Sands Campaign, the descriptions of the purposes for which the funds were granted are vague. In the covering letters on payments, somewhat more information is provided, but still not as much as would likely be included in the grant proposals.

From covering letters on payments made to Pembina Institute, it is clear that Pembina has been funded via Tides to pay a key role in The Tar Sands Campaign. In 2013, Pembina Institute received two payments, as follows:

US$225,000: According to the covering letter on this payment, "This six-month grant is for your organization to advance policy improvements, the narrative that oil sands expansion is problematic, land use decisions that slow expansion, and improved climate policy. This grant is also to provide regular briefings to the Tar Sands Group and broaden the base of key influencers, as outlined in your proposal." NOTE that the grant for US$225,000 was for only six months.

US$55,000: According to the covering letter on this payment, "This four-month grant is for (Pembina Institute's) work for further raising awareness of the negative impacts of the tar sands on the economy, for participating in conversation with Province of Alberta about water land and air regulatory reform, technical support to tar sands campaign partner, and for participation in the Shell JRPs and preparation for the Tech Frontier JRP."

Both of these payments were made specifically to the attention of Ed Whittingham. This means is that in his role as Executive Director of Pembina Institute, Mr. Whittingham accepted funds for advancing the narrative that oil sands expansion is problematic and for advancing land use decisions to slow the expansion of the Alberta oil industry.

As these covering letters show, on behalf of Pembina Institute, Mr. Whittigham also accepted funds that were specifically to enable Pembina's staff to provide "regular briefings" to the group of U.S. organizations that are running The Tar Sands Campaign. What did these "regular briefings" include? And to whom were they provided? These are questions that Mr. Whittingham should be able to answer. Mr. Whittingham accepted funds for Pembina to provide "technical support to tar sands campaign partner(s)."

In January of 2019, CBC televised an extensive report on The Tar Sands Campaign. Shortly after CBC's broadcast aired, Corporate Ethics substantially re-wrote the description of The Tar Sands Campaign at its web-site. CorpEthics removed the sentence that acknowledged that "from the very beginning, the campaign strategy was to "land-lock" the tar sands so the crude could not reach international markets where it could fetch a high price per barrel." The re-writing of this web-site does not change the fact that CorpEthics has stated that from the get-go, The Tar Sands Campaign aimed to harm the Canadian energy industry. This campaign targets not only the Canadian oil industry, it also aims to stop the construction of infrastructure required for the overseas export of natural gas. This is clear from tax returns for Corporate Ethics International.

In summary, from the above it is evident that Mr. Whittingham has a long history as a lead activist in close dealings with the undisclosed funders of a non-Canadian campaign to sabotage the Canadian oil and natural gas industry, not only in Alberta but elsewhere as well. For this reason, Mr. Whittingham's appointment to the Alberta Energy Regulator should be revoked.

Response from Mr. Whittingham (Added March 12, 2019):

On February 27 and 28, I spoke at length with Mr. Whittingham.  He explained briefly his vision for what he referred to as a clean energy highway in Ontario, and his involvement in another project to develop direct air capture technology. Mr. Whittingham also shared these three articles as examples of his point of view:

• Pembina’s Ed Whittingham takes a conciliatory approach to help move the needle on climate
• Shell launches first Canadian oil sands carbon-capture project
• Shell to launch Canada’s first oilsands carbon capture, storage project

Mr. Whittingham's passion for renewable energy projects is clear. He also confirmed that as Executive Director, he led The Pembina Institute to participate actively in The Tar Sands Campaign that aims to "land-lock" Alberta oil. Mr. Whittingham acknowledged that this campaign aimed to "sacrifice" Canada to symbolize that fossil fuel development should be stopped.

The net result of The Tar Sands Campaign and other factors - including the Alberta oil industry's ineffective response - is that thousands of Canadians, coast to coast to coast, have lost their employment and yet not one single barrel of oil has been kept in the ground. In Texas and elsewhere, oil is being produced faster than ever. With the dip in oil prices, Americans have bought bigger trucks and driven more miles. Oil consumption has gone up, not down.

Far from keeping the worst oil producer out of the global oil market, Tar Sands Campaign has succeeded in keeping out one of the best. Asked if he regrets any the course of action that he led The Pembina Institute to take over the six year period as Executive Director, Mr. Whittingham replied, "“I will be very, very disappointed if because we didn’t get this pipeline done, that what I think is a very good climate plan gets tossed out in the spring along with the NDP.”

To sum up, I wish Mr. Whittingham great success in a role that would allow him to continue on projects that would bring about better use of both renewable and non-renewable resources. Given Mr. Whittingham's long history of involvement in activism to sabotage the Alberta oil industry, it is clear to me that it would be inappropriate for him to serve on the board of directors of The Alberta Energy Regulator.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post reported that Mr. Whittingham was Executive Director of Pembina Institute for ten years. That was incorrect. Mr. Whittingham was Executive Director from 2011 to 2017.

A partial list of reports produced by Pembina Institute:

• Death By A Thousand Cuts, 2005
• Oil Sands Fever, 2005
• Troubled Waters, 2006
• Major Fossil Fuel Projects in northern British Columbia, 2006
• Blueprint for Responsible Oil Sands Development, 2007
• Under-Mining The Environment, 2008
• The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, 2008
• Danger In The Nursery: Impact on Birds of Tar Sands Oil Development in Canada’s Boreal Forest, 2008
• Oil Sands & Water: A Growing Toxic Legacy for Canadians? 2009
• How do two pipelines stack up? Reviewing the review processes for the Mackenzie Gas Project and the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, 2010
• Aboriginal concerns with oil sands, 2010
• U.S. uncertain about oilsands: How should Canada respond? (2010)
• Drilling deeper, In situ mining report card, 2010
• Why you should care about the oil sands, 2011
• Clearing the air on oilsands emission, 2012
• The case against the proposed Shell Jackpine oilsands mine expansion, 2012
• Booms, busts and bitumen, 2013
• Oil sands fever fact sheet, 2013
• Understanding the impacts of oilsands production, 2013
• Beneath the surface: a review of key facts in the oilsands debate, 2013
• Climate Implications of the Proposed Energy East Pipeline A Preliminary Assessment, 2014
• CCS potential in the oil sands evaluating the impact of emerging carbon capture technologies on oil sands emissions
• The Real GHG trend: Oilsands among the most carbon intensive crudes in North America, 2017
• Tailings Ponds: The Worst Is Yet To Come, 2017
• Fifty years of oilsands equals only 0.1% of land reclaimed, 2017
• Oilsands tailings weigh heavily on all Canadians, 2017
• Oilsands tailing ponds are a nasty challenge that can't be ignored, 2018

Corporate Ethics International REWROTE Its Website, REMOVING Admissions About "Land-Locking" Canadian Oil & Influencing Elections

On Sunday, January 20, CBC's The Weekly aired an extensive report on the American funding that has been fuelling pipeline controversy and gridlock in Canada for more than a decade. This activist campaign is called The Tar Sands Campaign and it is a multi-million dollar effort to stop the construction of infrastructure necessary for the development and export of both oil and gas infrastructure from western Canada.

Within days of CBC's show, the organization that has been running this campaign for more than a decade re-wrote its web-site, deleting significant parts of its own description of The Tar Sands Campaign, including admissions about the role of the U.S. funders, the intention to "land-lock" Canadian oil and the influence of this campaign in Canada's 2015 federal election.

When The Tar Sands Campaign first came to light in 2010, little was known about it. In fact, this campaign was only discovered because of three little words, "Tar Sands Campaign," in the U.S. tax returns of The Tides Foundation ("Tides").  Based in San Francisco, Tides operates a donor-advised fund, receiving funds from donors and re-granting them to recipients.

During the early years of The Tar Sands Campaign, the intentions and strategy of the funders was not entirely clear. In 2017, that changed when the organization that has been co-ordinating the campaign, Corporate Ethics International ("CorpEthics"), put a description of its on its web-site. 

The Tar Sands Campaign was created with initial funding from The Rockefeller Brothers Fund ("RBF"), one of the philanthropic entities of the famous family that pioneered the American oil industry. In 2007, RBF paid $250,000 to CorpEthics, "to co-ordinate the initial steps of a markets campaign to stem demand for tar sands derived fuels in the United States." CorpEthics wrote the strategy paper for The Tar Sands Campaign and has been running it ever since.  Michael Marx, who wrote the original strategy, has been the Executive Director of CorpEthics since The Tar Sands Campaign began.

The original description of The Tar Sands Campaign, published on-line by CorpEthics, stated that "From the very beginning, the campaign strategy was to land-lock the tar sands so their crude could not reach international markets where it could fetch a high price per barrel."  CorpEthics has deleted that sentence entirely. Its web-site now states, "As hoped from the beginning, the tar sands campaign spawned a broader and more diverse climate movement that went beyond the tar sands..." CorpEthics now says that since The Tar Sands Campaign began, the climate movement has gone on to "challenge the expansion of U.S. oil production in the Bakken Reserve, oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, oil fracking in states like New York, California, and Colorado, proposed natural gas and oil pipelines throughout the U.S., as well as the expansion of railroad infrastructure that would accommodate new oil production in the U.S". That's true. But those efforts are barely a whisper compared to the campaign to land-lock Canadian oil and gas. 

Corporate Ethics also removed a sentence about the role of the funders of The Tar Sands Campaign. That sentence said, "In 2008 two major U.S. foundations asked CorpEthics to recruit the groups, develop the strategy, create a coordinated campaign, and act as a re-granting agency for the North American Tar Sands Campaign." That revealing sentence has been entirely removed.

To see how the description of The Tar Sands Campaign was originally written, click here. To see how it has been re-written, click here. For a set of pages showing the differences between the original and the re-written versions, click here.

Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation Funded 50 Organizations Active In British Columbia: >US$200 Million (2003-2018)

1. Tides Canada: $72.8 million
2. Great Bear Initiative: $21.7 million
3. Pew Charitable Trusts: US$ 13 million  (Total grants to Pew: $16.7 million)
4. World Wildlife Fund Canada: US$ 10 million
5. Living Oceans Society: US$ 7.2 million
6. Vancouver Aquarium: US$ 6.7 million
7. Pacific Salmon Foundation: US$ 6.4 million
8. Round River Conservation Studies: US$ 6.4 million
9. West Coast Environmental Law: US$ 3.7 million
10. Bulkley Valley Centre for Natural Resources: US$ 3.1 million
11. West Coast Aquatic Management Association: US$ 3.6 million
12. Nanawakolas Council: US$ 3.6 million
13. David Suzuki Foundation: US$ 3.3 million
14. Middle Bay Aquaculture: US$ 3.1 million
15. Canadian Parks & Wilderness (CPAWS, B.C. Chapter): US$ 2.7 million
16. Watershed Watch Salmon Society: US$ 2.5 million
17. Ecotrust Canada: US$ 2.8 million
18. Conservation Fund: US$ 1.0 million & US$ 500,000 
19. Simon Fraser University:US$ 1.9 million
20. The Conversation Fund: US$ 1.7 million (US$1 million, US$ 500K & US $250K)
21. T. Buck Suzuki Foundation: US$2.6 million
22. Wild Salmon Center: US$ 1.5 million - Skeena salmon management
23. National Environmental Trust: US$ 1.5 million
24. STAND (formerly Forest Ethics): US$ 1.5 million
25. Skeena Watershed Conservation Council: US$ 1.5 million. See also:  US$ 1.5 million
26. New Venture Fund: US$ 1.3 million See also: US$ 692,290 & US$ 1,150,000.                Total granted to New Venture Fund: US$ 84.7 million
27. Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research Society: US$ 1.3 million
28. Raincoast Conservation Foundation: US$ 1.1 million
29. Pembina Foundation for Environmental Research & Education: US$ 1 million
30. Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition: US$ 1 million
31. Aquaseed: US$ 990,474
32. First Nations Fisheries Council: US$986,368
33. Seaweb: US$ 560,000 - "Antifarming Campaign" against farmed salmon
34. University of Victoria: US$ 1.4 million
35. Earthlife Canada: US$ 810,000
36. Sierra Club of B.C.: US$ 775,000
37. Canadian Environmental Grantmakers Network: US$700,000
38. Nature Converancy: US$ 268,714 - Great Bear Rainforest fundraising
39. B.C. Wildlife Federation: US$ 662,487
40. Sweetspring Salmon Inc.: US$ 650,000
41. Driftwood Foundation Society: US$ 626,254
42. Kitasoo-Xaisxais Band Council: US$ 556,447
43. B.C. Spaces for Nature: US$ 462,280
44. Rivers Without Borders (Tides Centre): US$ 447,006
45. Hartley Bay Village Council: US$ 324,413
46. S.O.S. Marine Conservation: US$ 253,524
47. Environmental Aboriginal Guardianship Through Law & Education: US$ 208,085
48. Institute for Journalism & Natural Resources: US$ 145,000                                                   See: The Great Bear Institute
49. Gitga'at Lands and Resources: US$ 108,713
50. Ecotrust: US$71 186 (specifically for Skeena salmon)

The Tar Sands Campaign: 50 Reports

"Raise the negatives" by generating "a high negative media profile" about Canadian oil is one of the goals of The Tar Sands Campaign, as outlined in its original strategy paper (see page 4). Below is a list of 50 reports that have been produced and publicized by organizations that are funded as part of The Tar Sands Campaign. 

1. Canada's Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth. Environmental Defence Canada. February, 2008.
2. BP and Shell: Rising Risks in Tar Sands Investments. Greenpeace, Platform & Oil Change International. September, 2008.
3. 11 Million Litres A Day: The Tar Sands Leaking Legacy Environmental Defence Canada. December, 2008.
4. Danger In The Nursery: Impact on Birds of Tar Sands Oil Development in Canada's Boreal Forest, Natural Resources Defence Council. Lead Author: Jeff Wells, Ph.D., Boreal Songbird Initiative. Co-authors: Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Natural Resources Defense Council, Gabriela Chavarria, Ph.D. (NRDC) and Simon Dyer, Pembina Institute. December 2008.
5. Freedom from Dirty Oil: Ontario's Tar Sands Decision. Environmental Defence and Forest Ethics.  Authors: Matt Price, Environmental Defence and Gillian McEachern, Forest Ethics. January, 2009.
6. Divided We Fall: The Tar Sands vs. The Rest of Canada, Environmental Defence, Equiterre & Forest Ethics (now STAND). Authors: Gillian McEachern, Forest Ethics, Matt Price, Environmental Defence, and Jacques Lacroix, Equiterre. May, 2009.
7. Out on the Tar Sands Mainline: Mapping Enbridge's Dirty Web of Pipelines. Polaris Institute. Written by Richard Girard, with contributions from Tanya Roberts Davis. May 2010, partially updated March, 2012.
8. Tar Sands Invasion: How Dirty and Expensive Oil from Canada Threatens America’s New Energy Economy. Corporate Ethics International, EARTHWORKS, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club. Authors: Kenny Bruno, Corporate Ethics International, Bruce Baizel, EARTHWORKS, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz (NRDC), Elizabeth Shope (NRDC), and Kate Colarulli, Sierra Club. May, 2010.
9. Staying Hooked on A Dirty Fuel. National Wildlife Federation. Written by Daniel Glick, The Story Group. The NWS acknowledges Tides Foundation for support for this publication. June, 2010.
10. Les sables bitumineux du Canada: Les obligations du gouvernement fédéral. Equiterre, Pembina Institute and Environmental Defence Canada. October, 2010.
11. Reserves Replacement Ratio in a Marginal Oil World. Written by Lorne Stockman, Research Director, Oil Change International. Acknowledgements: Stephen Kretzmann (Oil Change International), Charlie Kronick (Greenpeace) and James Marriott (PLATFORM). Reserves research by the Borealis Centre. www.borealiscentre.org. January, 2011.
12. The Tar Sands Long Shadow: Canada's Campaign to Kill Climate Policies Outside Our Borders. Climate Action Network. Uploaded September, 2011.
13. Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed. Oil Change International. September, 2011.
14. Pipeline and Tanker Trouble: The impact to British Columbia's communities, rivers, and Pacific coastline from tar sands oil transport. Authors: Anthony Swift, NRDC, Nathan Lemphers, Pembina Institute, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, NRDC, Katie Terhune, Living Oceans Society and Danielle Droitsch, NRDC. This report is endorsed by Dogwood Initiative, Douglas Channel Watch, ForestEthics, Friends of Wild Salmon, Headwaters Initiative, Pacific Wild, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Sierra Club BC, and West Coast Environmental Law. November, 2011.
15. Keystone XL Pipeline: Undermining U.S. Energy Security and Sending Tar Sands Overseas. Authors: Anthony Swift of NRDC, Lorne Stockman of Oil Change International and Luke Tonachel of NRDC.  January, 2012.
16. Enbridge Pipe Dreams and Nightmares: The Economic Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, Centre for Policy Alternatives, Written by Marc Lee. March, 2012.
17. Dirty Oil Diplomacy – The Canadian Government’s Global Push to Sell the Tar Sands. Climate Action Network Canada, Environmental Defence, Greenpeace, Natural Resource Defence Council, Sierra Club and Equiterre.
18. Keystone XL: A Tar Sands Pipeline To Increase Oil Prices. Natural Resources Defence Council. Author: Anthony Swift. 2012.
19. Petroleum Coke: The Coal Hiding in the Tar Sands. Oil Change International. Researched and written by Lorne Stockman with contributions from David Turnbull and Stephen Kretzmann. January, 2013.
20. Cooking The Books: How The State Department Analysis Ignores The True Climate Impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This report bears the logos of Oil Change International, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Environment America, NRDC, 350.org, Sierra Club & National Wildlife Federation. April, 2013.
21. Keystone XL: The Key to Crude Exports – New Report. Oil Change International. July, 2013.
22. Reality Check: Water and the Tar Sands. Environmental Defense Canada. This report bears the logos of NRDC, 350.org, Forest Ethics (STAND) and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. September, 2013.
23. FAIL: How the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Flunks the Climate Test. This reports bears the logos of Sierra Club, 350.org, Bold Nebraska, CREDO Action, Environment America, Environment Maine, Friends of the Earth, Green America, National Wildlife Federation, Oil Change International and Public Citizen. Authors:  Kate Colarulli, Sierra Club, Doug Hayes, Sierra Club, Courtenay Lewis, Sierra Club, Lorne Stockman, Oil Change International,  David Turnbull, Oil Change International. September, 2013. 
24. Economics of Transporting and Processing Tar Sands Crudes in Quebec. The Goodman Group, Ltd. in collaboration with Équiterre and Greenpeace Canada. January, 2014. 
25. Reality Check: Climate Change and The Tar Sands. Environmental Defence Canada. April, 2014.
26. Dirty Deals: How Trade Talks Threaten To Undermine EU Climate Policies And Bring Tar Sands To Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Council of Canadians & Friend of the Earth USA. Researched and written by Fabien Flues. Contributions and edits by: Natacha Cingotti, Colin Roche, Paul Hallows, Ilana Solomon, Laura Bu and Franziska Achterberg. The authors of this report acknowledge funding from the European Climate Foundation.
27. Fossil Fuel Subsidies An analysis of federal financial support to Canada's oil sector. Pembina Institute. Authors: Sarah Dobson and Amin Asadollahi. July, 2014.
28. All Risk No Reward: The Alberta Clipper Tar Sands Pipeline Expansion. Sierra Club. March, 2014.
29. Energy East: Where Oil Meets Water. Council of Canadians. The Council of Canadians thanks the following individuals and groups that provided information for this report: Andrea Harden-Donahue, Emma Lui, Jesse Ranauta, Jim Ellio , Teika Newton, Jim Sinclair, Brennain Lloyd, Yan Roberts, Kelly-Anne Smith, Ian Angus, Ma Abbo , Shelley Kath, Ecology O awa, Équiterre and the Conserva on Council of New Brunswick. August, 2014.
30. Wrong Side of the Tracks: Why Rail is not the Answer to the Tar Sands Market Access Problem. Oil Change International. Researched and written by Lorne Stockman with contributions by Hannah McKinnon, Steve Kretzmann and Shakuntala Makhijani. September, 2014.
31. Material Risks: How Public Accountability Is Slowing Tar Sands Development. Oil Change International and Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis. Researched and written collectively by Tom Sanzillo, Lorne Stockman, Deborah Rogers, Hannah McKinnon, Elizabeth Bast, and Steve Kretzmann. Assistance and/or additional contributions from Adam Wolfensohn, and Amin Asadollahi. October, 2014.
32. Pipeline Peril: Threat to Wildlife in the Great Lakes Region. National Wildlife Federation, Minnesota Environmental Network and Prairie Rivers Network. Authors: Shelley Kath, Paul Blackburn & Jim Murphy. December, 2014.
33. On the Edge: 1.6 Million Barrels per Day of Proposed Tar Sands Oil on Life Support, Oil Change International. Researched and written by Hannah McKinnon and Lorne Stockman, with support from Elizabeth Bast, Stephen Kretzmann, and Greg Muttit. May, 2015.
34. Tar Sands At Our Doorstep: The Threat to the Lake Champlain Region's Waters, Wildlife, and Climate. National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Advocates of New York & Vermont Natural Resources Council. Authors: Jim Murphy and Sheridan Brown, National Wildlife Federation.
35. Stop Tar Sands Oil Expansion and Infrastructure. Natural Resources Defense Council. August, 2015.
36. Quantifying Risk: Calculating The Probability of an Energy East Pipeline Rupture. September, 2015.
37. Lockdown: The End of Growth in the Tar Sands. Published by Oil Change International. Written by Hannah McKinnon, Greg Muttitt and Lorne Stockman. October, 2015.
38. Tar Sands: The Myth of Tidewater Access. Oil Change International, The Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defence. Researched and written by Hannah McKinnon, Lorne Stockman, Greg Muttitt, Anthony Swift and Adam Scott. March, 2016.
39. Energy East: A Risk To Our Drinking Water. Environmental Defence, Transition Initiative Kenora & The Council of Canadians. Report Partners: Conservation Council of New Brunswick, Equiterre, Greenpeace Canada, Northwatch & Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition. April, 2016.
40. Tar Sands in the Atlantic Ocean: Transcanada’s Proposed Energy East Pipeline. Natural Resources Defense Council. July 2016.
41. Flawed Fundamentals – Shell’s and BP’s Stalled Tar Sands Ambitions. Oil Change International and Greenpeace UK. September, 2016.
42. The Elephant in the Room: Canada’s Fossil Fuel Subsidies Undermine Carbon Pricing Efforts. Oil Change International, Environmental Defence, Équiterre, and Climate Action Network Canada. November, 2016.
43. Climate on the Line: Why New Tar Sands Pipelines Are Incompatible With the Paris Goals. Oil Change International. Researched and written by Adam Scott and Greg Muttitt. January, 2017.
44. Betting on Bitumen: Alberta’s Energy Policies from Lougheed to Klein. Parkland Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Author: Gillian Steward. June 2017.
45. Reality Check: The End of Growth in the Tar Sands. Oil Change International and Bold Alliance. Researched and written by Lorne Stockman and Hannah McKinnon with contributions from Greg Muttitt and Adam Scott.
46. In the Pipeline: Risks for Funders of Tar Sands Pipelines. Researched and written by Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace Canada, Greenpeace USA and Oil Change International. October, 2017.
47. Funding Tar Sands: Private Banks vs. the Paris Climate Agreement. This report bears the logos of Rainforest Action Network, Oil Change International, BankTrack, Indigenous Climate Action, Last Real Indians, Les Amis de La Terre France, Mazaska Talks, Re:Common, Sierra Club, Treaty Alliance against Tar Sands Expansion, UK Tar Sands Network, and urgewald. November, 2017.
48. Problematic Pipelines: The many obstacles facing Keystone XL. Written by Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace USA. Endorsed by Bold Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International and Rainforest Action Network. February, 2018. 
49. Tar Sands Tankers Super-highway Threatens Pacific Coast Waters. Greenpeace Canada. June, 2018
50. Risking It All: How Export Development Canada's Support for Fossil Fuels Drives Climate Change. Oil Change International in partnership with Above Ground, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Environmental Defence Canada, Equiterre, and Climate Action Network Canada. Researched and written by Alex Doukas and Adam Scott, Oil Change International. November, 2018.