In Canada, we have come to expect oil companies to, shall we say, fictionalize facts on a regular basis. Because Big Oil is about profit above transparent information at all costs, the PR gloss has become a second language we have had to learn to interpret.

But in Norway, where I am on temporary assignment working on the Greenpeace tar sands campaign, citizens hold their state-owned oil company Statoil—which prides itself on “sustainable” investments—to a much higher standard. So, it came as a surprise to me that at a press briefing this week at Statoil’s headquarters here in Olso, the company disseminated so much fictional information.

True, it’s amazing that my Greenpeace colleagues and I were allowed in at all. “What a Christian company we are, inviting you here!” chirped one of the Statoil employees as he ushered us out the door immediately following the briefing. I didn’t point out that Statoil didn’t invite us but just tolerated us after we called and said we were on our way. Instead I said, “Thank you, it was certainly—interesting. Ah, the sins the word interesting can encompass. “Oh, excellent,” he continued, misreading my tone. “Glad you enjoyed it.” To which I replied, “Interesting indeed—I don’t know how accurate it was, but it was certainly interesting...”

Allow me to outline—and dispute—just a few of these “interesting” claims.

Statoil fiction: 93 percent of the 1,100 square kilometres of land Statoil has leased in the tar sands will remain untouched.

Fact: Forgive the sarcasm but yeah, right. Might be true if Statoil only counts the area of well-pads and seismic lines. But all the land between those seismic lines will no longer be habitable for the many animals that live there, like the woodland caribou that are disappearing at a worrying rate.

Statoil fiction: Emissions from the Leismer Demonstration Project will be (at least) 60 kilograms per barrel.

Fact: This does not take into account the additional 40 kilograms per barrel that upgrading adds. Statoil’s reply to a reporter was that the 60 kilograms was what its project itself would create, and that since it shelved its proposed upgrader, and would instead send its bitumen to a refinery in Edmonton, it doesn’t count the additional carbon dioxide of upgrading. Which is kind of like saying, “Hey, we don’t make the crack—we just send them the cocaine—what they do with it after that isn’t on us.” Problem with that logic is Statoil admits bitumen must be upgraded into usable oil. So that extra 40 kilograms must be included, making overall emissions 100 kilograms per barrel. The average CO2 per barrel of (ready for refinery) oil produced by Statoil in Norway is only 7.8 kilograms. Those are the real numbers Statoil should be citing when comparing the energy intensity of its projects here versus in Canada.

Statoil fiction: “The Canadian oil sands are also heavily regulated on land, water, air and in other areas.”

Fact: I’m sorry, but whaaaat? Since when? The entire industry is allowed to self-regulate, self-govern, and self-report on everything from water use to animal deaths on operations. Where regulations exist, they are rarely enforced; otherwise we would be seeing way more legal action than just the Syncrude duck case.

Statoil fiction: “Currently, the oil sands industry draws less than half the allocation of water allowed by the Alberta Environment from the Athabasca River.”

Fact: From the Athabasca River alone, current tar sands projects remove about 370 million cubic metres of water each year, free of charge, about twice the water Calgary uses annually. And those are just current projects. Planned tar sands projects would increase water use by more than 50 percent to withdraw 529 million cubic metres of water from the Athabasca annually, more water than Toronto uses each year. Steam assisted gravity drainage extraction requires about a barrel of water to produce each barrel of oil, far more than for conventional oil, with the contaminated wastewater injected into deep aquifers. Additionally, groundwater withdrawals could draw down surface waters, possibly causing a loss of wetlands.

Statoil fiction: “Statoil uses the SAGD extraction method, which resembles conventional drilling and results in dramatically less surface disturbance than conventional open-pit mining, and SAGD does not require the use of tailings ponds.”

Fact: It’s true that SAGD doesn’t clear-cut vast swaths of untouched boreal forest. However, SAGD is more destructive than open-pit mining. SAGD uses massive amounts of natural gas and destroys forests and wetlands to build thousands of well sites, seismic lines, pipelines, and roads. Ecosystems and wildlife habitat are fragmented, resulting in deaths of woodland caribou, fish, bear, moose, and song birds. On top of that, in one year, an average SAGD producer can generate 33 million pounds (15 million kilograms) of salts and water-solvent carcinogens, which end up in landfills where they can leach into soil and groundwater, including potable water sources.

Statoil fiction: “All lands disturbed by oil sands must be reclaimed and returned to their former state” and “Required by law, and included in all project approvals, reclamation work is ongoing and continuous in the oil sands.”

Fact: After 40 years of open-pit mining of 420 square kilometres of forest, only 104 hectares has been certified as reclaimed by the government of Alberta. They don’t actually know how to recreate pristine boreal forest and wetlands, the largest terrestrial carbon sink in the world. Will they return all the lost carbon to the ecosystem? Which leads me to my next point.

Statoil fiction: (And I paraphrase here, because this wasn’t included in the briefing, but was questioned heavily by several reporters.) Statoil is a global leader in carbon capture and storage. Statoil claims it will manage to reduce its emissions in the tar sands by 40 percent. But other than some numbers on a graph, it has offered no tangible plan as to how exactly it will manage to accomplish this, hinting that CCS may factor in, if it turns out to be “financially viable”.

Fact: Statoil may be a global leader in CCS elsewhere in the world, but it is certainly not true in the tar sands. First, Statoil did not apply for any of the $2 billion in subsidies that the Alberta government offered to kick-start pilot projects. A Canadian Press article from March 22 says: “The firm looked into applying for funding from the Alberta government about a year and a half ago to build a CCS facility here. In the end, it found the economics didn’t work.” In fact, only three tar sands companies did apply for the funding. That’s because they and Statoil know what the Canadian government’s own scientists do: CCS simply isn’t viable in the tar sands, due to the impure and diverse nature of the emission streams. This was exposed last year when a government document was leaked to the press. Second, in 2009, it was widely reported that Statoil abandoned plans to build a CO2 treatment plant in Alberta. On top of that, the proper technology is at least 10 years away.

And if there’s any doubt as to these facts, they are all from legitimate sources. You can find more information and tirelessly referenced facts on the Greenpeace Canada Web site.

Jessica Wilson is a media and public relations officer for Greenpeace Canada.