[3][10][4] In 2003, similar projects—which like the one proposed at Kearl included an upgrader capable of turning bitumen into synthetic crude oil—were estimated to cost over CA$5 billion.

[14] In 2003, Imperial Oil Ltd. announced plans for a proposed new megaproject at Kearl Lake 60 kilometres (37 mi) north of Fort McMurray, in partnership with its parent company, Exxon.

[14] In 2003, the estimated daily production was 500,000 barrels per day (79,000 m3/d) which would make Imperial "one of the largest producers of bitumen and synthetic oil".

[18][21] Diluent was provided from Edmonton through the Inter Pipeline-owned 454 kilometres (282 mi) long, 12 inches (300 mm) diameter pipeline supplying the Athabasca Oil Sands Project.

[22] At the first stage an engineering, procurement, and construction management contract was awarded to AMEC while Fluor Corp. was responsible for the development of infrastructure and facilities.

The oil sands was negatively affected, with the number of people applying for employment insurance (EI) in Fort McMurray tripling in a 12-month period.

[17] In June 2008, Imperial/Exxon received government regulatory approval for the Kearl Oil Sands Project from the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB).

Williams expressed concerns about the cost of maintaining compliance with environmental laws after the revision of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, however many other industry executives, including Gwyn Morgan, "one of the oil patch's most vocal Kyoto opponents", were less concerned due to laws passed by the federal government that "limited the volume and cost for energy firms to reduce emissions".

[28] The Pembina Institute, Sierra Club of Canada, the Toxics Watch Society of Alberta and the Prairie Acid Rain Coalition launched legal action in Edmonton to challenge the 2006 regulatory approval of the project.

[11] They claimed that the joint federal-Alberta regulatory panel failed to do its job when it gave conditional approval to the Kearl open-pit mine.

After a joint federal-provincial panel reviewed and upheld the original decision, a water permit was reinstated in 2008, pending approval from Imperial's board of directors.

[35] In response to regulatory requirements, Imperial Oil has been working on remediation which as of February 2024 remains ongoing [36] The Kearl project faced a number of delays and cost escalations, due in part to complications associated with the 2011 and 2012 "Kearl Module Transportation Project" (KMTP) in which enormous, South Korean-made oil extraction modules had to be transported across northwestern states with considerable opposition from residents in Idaho and Montana.

[37] The KMTP involved constructing 75 roadway turnouts, bridge reinforcement, and relocating traffic signals and overhead wires along the 480 kilometres (300 mi) route.

[41] In April 2010, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) called for a public meeting to consult with communities that would be affected by the proposed KMTP.

[13] Ironworkers' Local 720's Harry Tostowaryk in Edmonton had no sympathy for Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil's plight as the 200 SungJin modules remained stuck in ports in Lewiston, Idaho and Vancouver, Washington.