Canadian energy producers among worlds’ best at limiting gas flaring

From the Canadian Energy Centre

International comparisons of gas flaring among top oil producers

Canada contributed just 0.7% of the global amount of gas flaring despite being the world’s fourth-largest oil producer

By Ven Venkatachalam and Lennie Kaplan

This Fact Sheet analyzes the upstream oil industry’s record on flaring in Canada relative to other top oil-producing countries. Gas flaring is the burning off of the natural gas that is generated in the process of oil extraction and production. Flaring is relevant because it is a source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) (see Appendix).

In 2022, 138,549 million cubic meters (m3) (or 139 billion cubic meters (bcm)) of flared gases were emitted worldwide, creating 350 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. Canada is a significant oil producer; it has the third-largest proven crude oil reserves and is the fourthlargest crude oil producer in the world (Natural Resources Canada, undated), and so contributes to flaring.

Flaring comparisons

This Fact Sheet uses World Bank data to provide international comparisons of flaring. It also draws on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) crude oil production data to compare flaring among the top 10 crude oil producing countries.

Table 1 shows gas flaring volumes in 2012 and 2022. In absolute terms, Russia recorded more flaring than any other country at 25,495 million m3 (25.4 bcm) in 2022, which was 1,628 million m3 (7 per cent) higher than in 2012.

The four countries that are the top GHG emitters through flaring (Russia, Iraq, Iran, and Algeria) accounted for 50 per cent of global gas flaring in 2022.

At 945 million m3, Canada was the eighth lowest flarer in 2022 (23rd spot out of the top 30 countries). It decreased its flaring emissions by 320 million m3 from the 2012 level of 1,264 million m3, a 25 per cent drop.

In 2022, Canada contributed just 0.7 per cent of the global amount of gas flaring despite being the world’s fourth largest oil producer (see Table 1).

Sources: World Bank (undated)

Flaring declined worldwide between 2012 and 2022

Figure 1 shows the change in flaring volumes between 2012 and 2022. Nine countries flared more in 2022 than in 2012, while 21 countries flared less. In the last decade, the global flaring volume decreased by 3 per cent.

The three countries that most significantly increased flaring between 2012 and 2022 were the Republic of the Congo (65 per cent), Iran (56 per cent), and Iraq (41 per cent).
The three countries that most significantly decreased flaring between 2012 and 2022 were Uzbekistan (-76 per cent), Columbia (-75 per cent) and Kazakhstan (-74 per cent).
As noted earlier, flaring fell by 25 per cent in Canada between 2012 and 2022.

Sources: World Bank (undated)

Comparing flaring to increased production

The decreases in flaring in Canada between 2012 and 2022 shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 understate the magnitude of the decline in flaring in the country. That is because Canada’s crude oil production increased by 45 per cent in that period, even as absolute flaring decreased by 25 per cent (see Table 2).

Canada compares very favourably with the United States, which increased crude oil production by 82 per cent and decreased flaring by 16 per cent.

Sources: World Bank (undated) and EIA (2023)

Largest oil producers and flaring intensity

To fully grasp how much more effective Canada has been than many other oil producers in reducing flaring, Table 3 compares both flaring intensity (gas flared per unit of oil production) and crude oil production among the top 10 oil producing countries (which account for 73 per cent of the world oil production).

Canada is the fourth-largest producer of crude oil, and its gas flaring intensity declined by 48 per cenft between 2012 and 2022. Four of the top 10 oil producers witnessed their flaring intensity increase between 2012 and 2022.

Sources: World Bank (undated) and EIA (2023)

Conclusion

Gas flaring contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is possible for countries to both increase their oil production and still reduce flaring. Canada is one noteworthy example of a country that has significantly reduced flaring not only compared to its increased production of crude oil, but also in absolute terms.

Appendix

Background

Flaring and venting are two ways in which an oil or natural gas producer can dispose of waste gases. Venting is the intentional controlled release of uncombusted gases directly to the atmosphere, and flaring is combusting natural gas or gas derived from petroleum in order to dispose of it.¹ As Matthew R. Johnson and Adam R. Coderre noted in their 2012 paper on the subject, flaring in the petroleum industry generally falls within three broad categories:

Emergency flaring (large, unplanned, and very short-duration releases, typically at larger downstream facilities or off-shore platforms);
Process flaring (intermittent large or small releases that may last for a few hours or a few days as occurs in the upstream industry during well-test flaring to assess the size of a reservoir or at a downstream plant during a planned process blowdown); and
Production flaring (may occur continuously for years while oil is being produced).

To track GHGs from flaring and venting, Environment Canada (2016) defines such emissions as:

Fugitive emissions: Unintentional releases from venting, flaring, or leakage of gases from fossil fuel production and processing, iron and steel coke oven batteries, or CO2 capture, transport, injection, and storage infrastructure.
Flaring emissions: Controlled releases of gases from industrial activities from the combustion of a gas or liquid stream produced at a facility, the purpose of which is not to produce useful heat or work. This includes releases from waste petroleum incineration, hazardous emission prevention systems, well testing, natural gas gathering systems, natural gas processing plant operations, crude oil production, pipeline operations, petroleum refining, chemical fertilizer production, and steel production.
Venting emissions: Controlled releases of a process or waste gas, including releases of CO2 associated with carbon capture, transport, injection, and storage; from hydrogen production associated with fossil fuel production and processing; of casing gas; of gases associated with a liquid or a solution gas; of treater, stabilizer, or dehydrator off-gas; of blanket gases; from pneumatic devices that use natural gas as a driver; from compressor start-ups, pipelines, and other blowdowns; and from metering and regulation station control loops.

1. Many provinces regulate flaring and venting including Alberta (Directive 060) British Columbia (Flaring and Venting Reduction Guideline), and Saskatchewan (S-10 and S-20). Newfoundland & Labrador also has regulations that govern offshore flaring.

Notes

This CEC Fact Sheet was compiled by Ven Venkatachalam and Lennie Kaplan at the Canadian Energy Centre: www.canadianenergycentre.ca. All percentages in this report are calculated from the original data, which can run to multiple decimal points. They are not calculated using the rounded figures that may appear in charts and in the text, which are more reader friendly. Thus, calculations made from the rounded figures (and not the more precise source data) will differ from the more statistically precise percentages we arrive at using source data. The authors and the Canadian Energy Centre would like to thank and acknowledge the assistance of an anonymous reviewer in reviewing the data and research for this Fact Sheet.

References (All links live as of September 23, 2023)

Alberta Energy Regulator (2022), Directive 060: Upstream Petroleum Industry Faring, Incinerating, and Venting <https://bit.ly/3AMYett>; BC Oil and Gas Commission (2021), Flaring and Venting Reduction Guideline, version 5.2 <https://bit.ly/3CWRa0i>; Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (2007), Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador Gas Flaring Reduction <https://bit.ly/3RhKpKu>; D&I Services (2010), Saskatchewan Energy and Resources: S-10 and S-20 <https://bit.ly/3TBrVGJ>; Johnson, Matthew R., and Adam R. Coderre (2012), Compositions and Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors of Flared and Vented Gas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 62, 9: 992-1002 <https://bit.ly/3cJRqPd>; Environment Canada (2016), Technical Guidance on Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Facility Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program <https://bit.ly/3CVQR5C>; Natural Resources Canada (Undated), Oil Resources <https://bit.ly/3oWWhW0>; U.S. Energy Information Administration (undated), Petroleum and Other Liquids <https://bit.ly/2Ad6S9i>; World Bank (Undated), Global Gas Flaring Data <https://bit.ly/3zXuxGX>.

Related Topics:#CanadianEnergyCentre #GasFlaring #InternationalComparisonOfGasFlaring #LennieKaplan #VenVenkatachalam

Up Next

Over $420 billion in government revenues from the Canadian oil sands sector expected through 2050

Don't Miss

First Nation wants reasons for Trans Mountain ruling; says it’s entitled to appeal

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

‘The electric story is over’

Business / 8 hours ago

Some Of The Wackiest Things Featured In Rand Paul’s New Report Alleging $1,639,135,969,608 In Gov’t Waste

Alberta / 14 hours ago

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Alberta

Alberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale

Published on December 16, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Oil sands could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years

Investor interest in Canadian oil producers, primarily in the Alberta oil sands, has picked up, and not only because of expanded export capacity from the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Enverus Intelligence Research says the real draw — and a major factor behind oil sands equities outperforming U.S. peers by about 40 per cent since January 2024 — is the resource Trans Mountain helps unlock.

Alberta’s oil sands contain 167 billion barrels of reserves, nearly four times the volume in the United States.

Today’s oil sands operators hold more than twice the available high-quality resources compared to U.S. shale producers, Enverus reports.

“It’s a huge number — 167 billion barrels — when Alberta only produces about three million barrels a day right now,” said Mike Verney, executive vice-president at McDaniel & Associates, which earlier this year updated the province’s oil and gas reserves on behalf of the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Already fourth in the world, the assessment found Alberta’s oil reserves increased by seven billion barrels.

Verney said the rise in reserves despite record production is in part a result of improved processes and technology.

“Oil sands companies can produce for decades at the same economic threshold as they do today. That’s a great place to be,” said Michael Berger, a senior analyst with Enverus.

BMO Capital Markets estimates that Alberta’s oil sands reserves could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years.

The long-term picture looks different south of the border.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that American production will peak before 2030 and enter a long period of decline.

Having a lasting stable source of supply is important as world oil demand is expected to remain strong for decades to come.

This is particularly true in Asia, the target market for oil exports off Canada’s West Coast.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region will go from 35 million barrels per day in 2024 to 41 million barrels per day in 2050.

The growing appeal of Alberta oil in Asian markets shows up not only in expanded Trans Mountain shipments, but also in Canadian crude being “re-exported” from U.S. Gulf Coast terminals.

According to RBN Energy, Asian buyers – primarily in China – are now the main non-U.S. buyers from Trans Mountain, while India dominates purchases of re-exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast. .

BMO said the oil sands offers advantages both in steady supply and lower overall environmental impacts.

“Not only is the resulting stability ideally suited to backfill anticipated declines in world oil supply, but the long-term physical footprint may also be meaningfully lower given large-scale concentrated emissions, high water recycling rates and low well declines,” BMO analysts said.

Alberta

The case for expanding Canada’s energy exports

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

For Canada, the path to a stronger economy — and stronger global influence — runs through energy.

That’s the view of David Detomasi, a professor at the Smith School of Business at Queen’s University.

Detomasi, author of Profits and Power: Navigating the Politics and Geopolitics of Oil, argues that there is a moral case for developing Canada’s energy, both for Canadians and the world.

David Detomasi. Photo courtesy Smith School of Business, Queen’s University

CEC: What does being an energy superpower mean to you?

DD: It means Canada is strong enough to affect the system as a whole by its choices.

There is something really valuable about Canada’s — and Alberta’s — way of producing carbon energy that goes beyond just the monetary rewards.

CEC: You talk about the moral case for developing Canada’s energy. What do you mean?

DD: I think the default assumption in public rhetoric is that the environmental movement is the only voice speaking for the moral betterment of the world. That needs to be challenged.

That public rhetoric is that the act of cultivating a powerful, effective economic engine is somehow wrong or bad, and that efforts to create wealth are somehow morally tainted.

I think that’s dead wrong. Economic growth is morally good, and we should foster it.

Economic growth generates money, and you can’t do anything you want to do in social expenditures without that engine.

Economic growth is critical to doing all the other things we want to do as Canadians, like having a publicly funded health care system or providing transfer payments to less well-off provinces.

Over the last 10 years, many people in Canada came to equate moral leadership with getting off of oil and gas as quickly as possible. I think that is a mistake, and far too narrow.

Instead, I think moral leadership means you play that game, you play it well, and you do it in our interest, in the Canadian way.

We need a solid base of economic prosperity in this country first, and then we can help others.

CEC: Why is it important to expand Canada’s energy trade?

DD: Canada is, and has always been, a trading nation, because we’ve got a lot of geography and not that many people.

If we don’t trade what we have with the outside world, we aren’t going to be able to develop economically, because we don’t have the internal size and capacity.

Historically, most of that trade has been with the United States. Geography and history mean it will always be our primary trade partner.

But the United States clearly can be an unreliable partner. Free and open trade matters more to Canada than it does to the U.S. Indeed, a big chunk of the American people is skeptical of participating in a global trading system.

As the United States perhaps withdraws from the international trading and investment system, there’s room for Canada to reinforce it in places where we can use our resource advantages to build new, stronger relationships.

One of these is Europe, which still imports a lot of gas. We can also build positive relationships with the enormous emerging markets of China and India, both of whom want and will need enormous supplies of energy for many decades.

I would like to be able to offer partners the alternative option of buying Canadian energy so that they are less reliant on, say, Iranian or Russian energy.

Canada can also maybe eventually help the two billion people in the world currently without energy access.

CEC: What benefits could Canadians gain by becoming an energy superpower?

DD: The first and primary responsibility of our federal government is to look after Canada. At the end of the day, the goal is to improve Canada’s welfare and enhance its sovereignty.

More carbon energy development helps Canada. We have massive debt, an investment crisis and productivity problems that we’ve been talking about forever. Economic and job growth are weak.

Solving these will require profitable and productive industries. We don’t have so many economic strengths in this country that we can voluntarily ignore or constrain one of our biggest industries.

The economic benefits pay for things that make you stronger as a country.

They make you more resilient on the social welfare front and make increasing defence expenditures, which we sorely need, more affordable. It allows us to manage the debt that we’re running up, and supports deals for Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

CEC: Are there specific projects that you advocate for to make Canada an energy superpower?

DD: Canada’s energy needs egress, and getting it out to places other than the United States. That means more transport and port facilities to Canada’s coasts.

We also need domestic energy transport networks. People don’t know this, but a big chunk of Ontario’s oil supply runs through Michigan, posing a latent security risk to Ontario’s energy security.

We need to change the perception that pipelines are evil. There’s a spiderweb of them across the globe, and more are being built.

Building pipelines here, with Canadian technology and know-how, builds our competitiveness and enhances our sovereignty.

Economic growth enhances sovereignty and provides the resources to do other things. We should applaud and encourage it, and the carbon energy sector can lead the way.