Corporate oilsands opposition mounts

Two major U.S. retailers and an influential British shareholder grouphave rebuked Alberta's oilsandsby avoiding suppliers who use oilsands-derived fuel, andputting pressure onenergy titans.

Whole Foods Market, a U.S.-based grocery chain that caters to high-end, health conscious consumers, recently moved to stop using any fuel sourced from Alberta oilsands in its supply chain.

Since January, Whole Foods has been able to ensure that only fuels derived from U.S.-based crude oil are being use in the supply chains at 10 of the firm's 11 North American distribution centres.

"It's just one of many steps we take every day to be good stewards of our communities and the environment," spokesperson Libba Letton said, adding that they are working on finding a non-oilsands supplier for its remaining distribution centre.

In all, the chain's internal fleet cover some 34,786,000 kilometres a year.

Apparel retailer Bed Bath & Beyond also recently expressed concern over the environmental footprint of Alberta oilsands, and though the company stopped short of an outright ban, it vowed to "follow up with our service providers on this issue to continue to remind them of our position and concern."

Both actions came in response to a concerted lobbying effort by environmental NGO ForestEthics. In late 2009, the group began targeting Fortune 500 companies and warning that using oil sourced from Canadian oilsands risks tarnishing their brands.

"The issue here is that major U.S. retailers want to do right by their increasingly green-minded consumers and protect their brands,"ForestEthics spokesperson Nikki Skuce said. "This is yet another example of the world embracing cleaner energy while Canada is expanding, investing in and heavily promoting [oilsands] oil."

Due mainly to the difficulty of extracting it, oilsands-derived fuel is held to have a higher carbon footprint than other energy sources.

Shareholders apply pressure

Meanwhile, influential British investor activist group FairPensions filed a resolution with British oil multinational BP PLCdemanding more information about the risks associated with the company's oilsands activities.

"Oilsands are something that is a big concern with environmentalists, but it's also a big financial concern too," FairPensions spokesperson Duncan Exley said. "The investors are very concerned that BP has not reassured them about the costs of carbon capture and storage, or about the costs of expected emissions.

"It is looking at some of the events in the future which is only right for long term investors," Exley said.

FairPensions claims the resolution has the backing of 150 institutional investors, and they will present it at BP's annual general meeting in April.

BP has partnered with Husky Energy Inc. to develop itsSunrise project, located 60 kilometres northeast of Fort McMurray, Alta.

The shareholder group isn't necessarily lobbying BP to pull out of oilsands entirely, but merely to be more upfront about the costs of doing business there, Exley said.

"The coalition is not saying pull out," he said."It's saying we need some reassurance, we need some answers we haven't gotten yet."

The group recently took a similar action against Dutch energy firm Royal Dutch Shell PLC, urging clarity on the company's oilsands operations. Last month,Shell CEO Peter Voser said thecompany plans to rely more on exploring and developing conventional oil and gas reserves for its future growth, and added that its oilsands activities would be "very much slower."

The $14-billion Athabasca Oilsands Project, of which Shell holds a 60 per cent interest, is on schedule to produce 255,000 barrels per day by next year, but Shell hasshelved plans to expand the facility to produce 700,000 barrels.