A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences (PNAS) has called the government of Alberta and their oil sands watchdog program out, accusing them of gross incompetence at best and downright conspiracy to commit fraud at worst.
Our study confirms the serious defects of the RAMP. More than 10 years of inconsistent sampling design, inadequate statistical power, and monitoring-insensitive responses have missed major sources of PAC to the Athabasca watershed. Most importantly, RAMP claims that PAC concentrations are within baseline conditions and of natural origin have fostered the perception that high-intensity mining and processing have no serious environmental impacts. The existing RAMP must be redesigned with more scientific and technical oversight to better detect and track PAC discharges and effects. Oversight by an independent board of experts would make better use of monitoring resources and ensure that data are available for independent scrutiny and analyses. The scale and intensity of oil sands development and the complexity of PAC transport and fate in the Athabasca watershed demand the highest quality of scientific effort. (Oil Sands Development Contributes Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds to the Athabasca River and its Tributaries, report)
The government-supported agency in Canada that is supposed to be monitoring the toxic discharges from Canada's oil sand development into the surrounding environment is called the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP). What they were supposed to monitoring was contamination in the environment resulting from oil sands production.
That organization has shown itself to be completely incompetent at the task to which it was assigned. As recently as last year, RAMP declared that the water quality of the Athabasca River was similar to what it had been before oil sand development began. When levels of toxicity were shown to be moving higher, Environment Alberta and their oil sands watchdog program stated that the toxic metals found in the water were from natural erosion processes.
The government of Alberta has spent millions of dollars defending the oil sands industry, and why not; oil sand development is expected to add nearly a trillion dollars to Canada's gross domestic product.
The new study released in PNAS this week, though, shows indisputable evidence that the Albertan government and oil sands industry funded incomplete and inadequate water quality reports. Their reports that showed no increase in toxicity levels or attributed increases in river toxicity to natural conditions were constructed to produce a pro-oil sands result and keep the money flowing into the region despite known adverse side-effects on people and the surrounding environment.
The new study showed that contamination in area soils and rivers is not due to natural erosion processes. Instead, the contamination is due to several activities directly related to the oil sands development.
In addition to direct activities like bulldozing and deforestation that increases toxic sediment runoff into the streams, particulate matter from emissions released from the processing facilities accumulates on snow and is transported into rivers and soils through meltwater runoff.
Levels of heavy metals detected from snow runoff or downstream of industrial development exceeded Canadian and Alberta guidelines for protecting fish and aquatic life for seven out of 13 pollutants studied. In some cases metal contamination exceeded guidelines by 30-fold. The heavy metals include mercury, arsenic, beryllium, copper, cadmium, thallium, lead, nickel, zinc, and silver. All are toxic. The study found that the heavy metals are primarily leaching out of bulldozed or deforested mine sites that cover a 600 square kilometre area or are raining down on the landscape in the form of particulate air pollution from oil sands upgraders that transform bitumen into marketable oil. The study directly contradicts claims by the Alberta government and an industry-run monitoring program that pollution in the river basically comes from the erosion of natural outcrops of metal-rich bitumen along the region's river banks. The chemical analysis of water and snow samples taken from a total of 47 sites shows that industry "substantially increases loadings of toxic priority pollutants to the Athabasca River." (Tyee)
Besides an increase in toxic sediment runoff and toxic snowmelt, the tailing ponds that store the highest concentrated toxic sludge have problems with leakage and are periodically discharged into local rivers and streams. In fact, the problem concerning the toxic sludge ponds is so serious, if exposed, could derail the entire oil sands industry.
One report, which resulted from a study originally proposed by the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee came out so unfavorable to the oil sands industry that the committee shredded the drafts of the study and tried to sweep the issue under the rug. The report was ultimately released by the Liberal Government and Environment Canada and showed that expansion of Canada's oil sands would come at a considerable cost to the nations water supply.
These figures are especially alarming considering current plans to triple tar sands production by 2025. For every one barrel of water produced, up to six barrels of freshwater are contaminated. The resulting contaminated waste water inevitably leaks into groundwater (by some estimates at a rate of 11 million liters a day). If the industry continues its current tailings disposal practices, levels of toxins in Canada’s water and environment will inevitably and dramatically increase. The Alberta government will have a much tougher sell in making tar sands and its toxic byproducts seem safe in light of this study. (CC)
None of this is good news for the oil sands industry or for the government of Alberta. The study comes right in the middle of the "green the oil sands campaign" and will not help attract more investors into the oil sands industry. There is no indication yet if the U.S., who had agreed to build more pipelines to import substantially more oil from Canada, will continue expanding its Canadian oil sands campaign.
The government Alberta has a history of trying to undermine criticism of oil sands development, especially criticism that comes in the form of pointing out the environmental and social costs of the practice.
As recently as the Fall of last year when a previous study found toxins downstream from oil sands development, the head of Alberta Environment’s science, research, and innovation section accused the scientists who did the study of lying and manipulating data. Alberta Environment ultimately had to retract their statements to avoid a defamation lawsuit against the government agency. (GaM)
The results from this recent study, however, will have to be swallowed and dealt with on a serious level in order for the oil sands industry to have a future. There is no way oil developers or the government of Alberta could afford the liability insurance if they ignore these findings. In an industry that already has extremely high overhead costs associated with processing bitumen from sand into usable petroleum, new environmental and social costs associated with oil sands development may push the entire industry into the uneconomic realm of the business world.
It would appear that the government of Alberta has acted in the past to defend an industry even going so far as to bury the truth while at the same time fabricating reports that made toxic contaminants from oil sands development seem like they were coming from natural sources. This report exposes the Canadian government's loyalties to oil developers as its subtext, but it is ultimately practical in its recommendations.
Most Canadians realize that oil sand development is going to continue for the near future; similar to the realization that Americans have regarding coal. But, just as with Americans, Canadians want to see that their resources are developed in a responsible manner, developed in ways that protect the environment, animals, and humans. The report, if acted upon, can put a proper pricetag on oil sands oil, and internalize all of the external costs that the industry was enjoying for free, namely, polluted water sources, contaminated soil, loss of habitat, and increased health costs for those living downstream.
Global demand for oil and the resulting economic potential mean that development of oil sands will continue. This development has the potential to impact society and the environment significantly. It is essential that any detrimental effects be mitigated as much as possible and that development proceed in a manner that minimizes effects on the health and welfare of the environment, wildlife, and humans alike. (PNAS)
There is no telling yet how this report will affect the First Nations' effort to hold oil sands developers accountable for the 30% increase in cancer rates in their communities. Up until now, the 'facts' on the ground have been that oil sands developers are not responsible for environmental contaminants related to their industry. This new report may change all of that and renew the push to hold oil sands developers accountable for the environmental damage and the human suffering that they are causing downstream. (Audubon)
Read more @ EarthPulseDaily
Comments