Home » News » Get out of the sandbox
News
Get out of the sandbox
News Articles | Ottawa Citizen | Alastair Sweeny | September 21, 2010
Read the full article on the originating site
A U.S. senator has called it “Canada’s national treasure.” It’s been demonized by environmentalists as the “worst project in the world.” Maude Barlow likens it to Mordor in Lord of the Rings — a place where nature goes to die.
It’s the Athabasca Sands, the largest single deposit of oil on the planet, and all you have to do it dig it up, wash off the oil, or extract it using underground steam, and then clean up when you leave.
It’s industrial oil, a trillion barrels of it, waiting to be extracted from a thick cake of bitumen beneath the boreal forest of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
It’s also the mother of all public relations battles, Big Green Facing off against Big Oil, the one mining major contributions from environmental do-gooders, the other mining black gold to produce “dirty” oil that we can pump into our Priuses.
These are expensive operations — Greenpeace alone raises more than $270 million a year, and a decent underground bitumen plant can set you back a billion dollars.
So who’s winning the PR war? And behind all these words, pro and con, is there real substance that the public can relate to?
In a recent speech to the World Energy Conference in Montreal, Suncor CEO Rick George pleaded for an “adult conversation” on oilsands development.
I totally agree, but this conversation will have to address one major environmental concern. And I don’t mean CO2 and global warming. The total emissions from the Athabasca Sands — 38.4 million tonnes — are less than just one coal fired power station at Taichung in Taiwan, and 70 times less that the total from U.S. coal fired power stations. So let’s get CO2 right off the table; it’s a non-starter.
The concern is with real and potential water pollution.
In researching my book Black Bonanza, I tried to get at the truth and see both sides of the pollution equation. It was a bit of a detective story, and I’m still getting mixed signals from the participants.
On the one hand the government-supported Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program concluded in 2009 that water quality in the Athabasca River was similar now to conditions before oilsands development.
On the other hand, University of Alberta ecologist Dr. David Schindler is again stating that mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium are among the toxins being released into the Athabasca, which flows north through Alberta’s major oil sands operations. In a recent press conference, he showed some deformed whitefish from Lake Athabasca, and stated, “I don’t think the concentrations alone are dangerous. I worry about some of them, like mercury, because there, parts per trillion translate into parts per million in fish.”
The problem is, neither side is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Let’s clarify the questions:
a) Are Athabasca Sands tailing ponds leaching into the Athabasca River, and if so, how much, and is it a danger to downstream communities such as Fort Chipewyan?
b) Is there natural seepage into the Athabasca River? If so, how much, and is it an issue?
c) Are there any other sources of pollution into the river?
d) Are levels of pollution in the Athabasca a risk to human health?
e) Are there acceptable levels of water pollution that the ecology of the river can handle, and if so, what are they?
Let’s look at these issues point by point.
a) Seepage from ponds — the Greens say yes, there is continual seepage of toxic carcinogens into the river. The Alberta government says it’s monitoring the situation, and sees no issues. Technology is finally being developed to dry up the fine clay tailings in the ponds at a faster rate. Presumably in a reasonably swift-flowing river, natural flushing carries any seepage away downstream. The problem here is what happens when it reaches Lake Athabasca and slows down and the seepage settles. We don’t know.
b) Yes, there always has been natural seepage, and it is considerable. Along the banks of the river there are fountains of tar, and along the shore there are areas where on hot days in summer you can sink up to your ankles in the stuff. Locals who swim in the river say you can get covered with a film of oil. Is this seepage dangerous? Possibly. What are the quantities of natural carcinogens being released? We don’t know.
c) Yes, what ecologist Dr. David Schindler and the other greens conveniently fail to mention when attacking the Sands is that there are five pulp mills upstream from the oilsands mines. Do they contribute to Athabasca pollution? They likely do, but how much? We don’t know.
d) The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta examined former Fort Chipewyan GP Dr. John O’Connor’s charges that there were elevated levels of cancer in the village, and found no evidence. One fish scare story from last year — the fish with two jaws — has been debunked: as the fish rotted, the lower jaw expanded into the upper. But we do know that water pollution can cause problems with aquatic life. Cancers have been found in Great Lakes salmon, likely caused by pollution. Acidic discharges from mines and pulp mills can cause high concentrations of mercury in some fish. The Ontario government warns that pregnant women and children should not eat Lake Ontario salmon. Should similar warnings be given to the residents of Fort Chip? We don’t know.
e) Are there acceptable levels of water pollution in the Athabasca? We just don’t know. But if we are going to have attan adult conversation about oilsands development, perhaps it’s time to find out. Since we clearly have a standoff between Big Oil and Big Green, perhaps it’s time for Ottawa to take the lead.
Let’s get a full environmental assessment of the whole watercourse, with all the stakeholders involved and engaged.
Alastair Sweeny is author of Black Bonanza (Wiley 2010).
