Topic
Seems to be Kool-Aid from the tar sands lobby, as Renner and Prentice shrug off a key study.
Minister of Environment Jim Prentice: No worries.
Detection of high heavy metals levels in Athabasca River contradicts government claims.
Environmental assessment rules weakened, advisory group blindsided, say critics.
Alberta's Environment Minister Rob Renner and Canada's Environment Minister Jim Prentice just drank a gallon of Kool-Aid this week.
In fact the two fanatical bitumen salesmen became a more dangerous threat to the tar sands industry than any error-ridden billboard erected by U.S. environmentalists.
Presented with a blunt scientific study showing heavy-metal pollution coming directly from the tar sands industry (and how could four city-sized mining projects and assorted upgraders not create a bit of a mess) both Renner and Prentice, two radicals, raised their glasses and drank heartily like giddy members of some faith-based petroleum sect.
Without so much as reading the peer reviewed paper by Erin Kelly and David Schindler in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, Renner calmly asserted that pollution is naturally occurring and will always be there, with or without a $200 billion engineering project in the neighborhood.
"My scientists are telling me that the amount of compounds that can be detected in the Athabasca River at this point in time are not a concern and are of insignificant levels," Renner told the Edmonton Journal. "The fact remains that there are naturally occurring substances in the water. And if we had never set foot in the region those kinds of results would still be there."
Prentice's echo effect
Environment Minister Jim Prentice said exactly the same damn thing as if reading from the same propaganda sheet. He said that his federal scientists told him that any contaminants such as lead or mercury appearing in the Athabasca River all come from Mother Nature and not from the oil sands industry.
"That has consistently been what I've been told as minister by the federal scientists," said the scripted Prentice from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que.
Now Renner and Prentice, who claim to be responsible developers of the oil sands, are at least being consistent. They drank the same Kool-Aid when Erin Kelly and Schindler published an ever more damning 2009 PNAS study documenting that air pollution deposited enough bitumen particulates on the snow over a four month period to create an annual 5,000 barrel oil spill in the Athabasca watershed. Astoundingly, Prentice then called the evidence an "allegation."
RAMPed up
So why would two environment ministers destroy their reputations, demean the credibility of their respective governments, misrepresent their employees, insult common sense and endanger an important industry by ignoring documented and peer review findings of pollution from the tar sands?
Upton Sinclair, the U.S. novelist and muckracker, has one answer: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
For the record, both Renner and Prentice receive a portion of their salaries from either tar sands royalties or taxes. Because neither Canada nor Alberta separate bitumen dollars from general revenue or put oil money in sovereign funds like accountable governments such as Norway, Renner and Prentice tend to speak for their paycheques.
But that's only part of the story. Renner and Prentice have also placed their faith in an industry monitoring group called the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program (RAMP). Since 1997, a group funded and administered by Suncor, Syncrude, Shell and other tar sands companies, has monitored water quality, fish, cumulative effects, acid rain and shellfish health on the Athabasca River.
But nothing about RAMP seems terribly balanced or fair. The head of RAMP's steering committee works for Suncor. Its spokesman, Fred Kuzmic, an engineer, works for Shell. RAMP doesn't produce any peer-reviewed papers, just industry-based, trust-me documents. Nor is its data public.
To get access to RAMP's "licensed property" scientists have to sign an agreement that gives RAMP "the right to inspect the premises of the person to ensure the terms and condition of the agreement are being observed." Environmental data on fish and mussels also has to be "stored in a proper manner so no third party can have access to it."
Monitoring 'lacks scientific process'
But most third parties don't think much about the quality of the data. Here's what more than a dozen top federal scientists including G. Burton Ayles, then director general of the Central and Arctic Region, had to say about the integrity of RAMP in 2004.
On water quality, the scientists concluded that the number of monitoring sites was inadequate and that RAMP was not designed to register "development-related change locally or in a cumulative way." The fish program suffered from "inconsistencies in study design, study area, sampling methods and quality control practices." And on it went.
Overall, they found it "alarming that the main monitoring program for the area significantly lacks strategic direction and scientific process."
Now if a group of independent analysts had produced a similar performance review on ,say, the finance or production department of Syncrude or Suncor, executives such as Marcel Coutu and Rick George would have responded in a logical and calm fashion. They would have corrected the problems and even fired incompetent staff.
But not RAMP. Even though a 2005 RAMP technical report agreed with many of the federal findings ("The suitability of RAMP design for monitoring regional effects is uncertain.") RAMP motored on. This week Fred Kuzmic claimed that RAMP actually responded to 62 of 64 recommendations from the federal review. But there is no evidence anything has changed on RAMP's website.
"It's still the same incompetent stuff," notes Kevin Timoney, a independent research scientist. "It's a cookie cutter. Every year they change the numbers but not the text."
If this were the real world
So here's the deal. Two environment ministers have officially rejected real science that questions their bizarre faith that the tar sands does not pollute. They drank the Kool-Aid.
In doing so, two politicians have chosen to champion private industry science arguably designed to find no problem with tar sands pollution. Moreover Canada's best federal scientists gave this program a failing grade in 2004. RAMP has yet to disclose the damning review on its website.
Nevertheless, Renner says that RAMP has done "an admirable job" and that there is no problem. As a result neither government nor RAMP has any weight, authority and credibility and that's dangerous.
In a sane and responsible world, a normal government would have reacted to real evidence of pollution by acknowledging the problem. It then would create a credible monitoring program run by government (not industry) with public oversight to restore faith in both government and industry. That's how the U.S. government handled the BP mess. And then life would go on.
But not in Alberta.
Kool-Aid anyone? ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
27
Login or register to post comments
Alberta Government
2 years ago
RAMP is not all
In addition to participating in the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program, Alberta Environment currently monitors the Athabasca River and its tributaries at 11 sites throughout the oil sands and audits the monitoring data that oil sands operators are required to provide. RAMP itself runs more than 100 water quality stations in the region collecting data meant to address long-term regional changes, and complement the site-specific data required of oil sands operators.
- David Sands, for the Government of Alberta
Frank
2 years ago
Andrew
Great reporting as always, I really appreciate being able to read your columns here.
shepsil
2 years ago
Drinking water from below the belt.
Bottled water from below the Tar Sands belt, from the Athabaska River should be supplied to the Alberta Gov't and the Canadian Gov't legislatures. Hell, lets set up taste tests for these politicians to taste the industry they are supporting.
The alternative is what we have now, genocide and murder of the human beings living downstream of the Tar Sands.
alive
2 years ago
right
The statement: "My scientists" says it all!
bought and paid for scientists.
freebear
2 years ago
Alberta Government
"In addition to participating in the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program, Alberta Environment currently monitors the Athabasca River and its tributaries at 11 sites throughout the oil sands and audits the monitoring data that oil sands operators are required to provide. RAMP itself runs more than 100 water quality stations in the region collecting data meant to address long-term regional changes, and complement the site-specific data required of oil sands operators.
- David Sands, for the Government of Alberta"
And do you share the data collected?
Van Isle
2 years ago
Pick any issue such as
Pick any issue such as forestry, fisheries, or the enviroment, the Governments will always take the corporate side. The Tar Sands is no different. If you want to see the end-results of the Tar Sands, well, all you have to do is see what has happened to the forestry and fishing industries, but this time there's going to be one huge enviromental mess.
Alberta Government
2 years ago
Freebear
The blog here: http://alberta.ca/blog/home.cfm/2009/12/7/Test-us contains links to what's already on-line, and additional data can also be requested from Alberta Environment. We have had recurring complaints that the process for obtaining our data is difficult and not timely (over 40 years, collection and recording systems change; there is an immense amount of information in varying formats) - and on issues other than water as well, to be clear - so we're in the midst of creating a new website to compile real-time and historical information from all monitoring and reporting activities and place it all in tiers that will go from what a layman might want, to industry specialists, up to what scientists request. We're hoping to have that up soon.
- David Sands
G West
2 years ago
@ David Sands
In place of the promotional message, it would be appreciated if you actually addressed the findings referenced in the study.
I'm not surprised you haven't - when one has something to hide diversionary tactics are the normal course of action - especially when you're being paid to distract, divert and dissemble.
As for the value of blogs as peer reviewed science - surely you jest.
hakaakah
2 years ago
@David. Can you help please.
@David.
Can you help please. I am trying to find a monitoring station data you account for north of Fort McMurray. I see water levels and rates of water per/hr but no toxicology data. Can you maybe post a direct link to that. I found this blurp interesting as well.
Data provided at this site are provisional and preliminary in nature and are not |
| intended for use by the general public. They are automatically generated by remote |
| equipment that may not be under Alberta Government control and have not been reviewed |
| or edited for accuracy. These data may be subject to significant change when manually |
| reviewed and corrected. Please exercise caution and carefully consider the provisional |
| nature of the information provided. |
| |
| The Government of Alberta assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness |
| of these data and any use of them is entirely at your own risk.
ACYA eh? Your as toxic as the rivers you pollute and you can keep your royalty payments you think we benefit so much from. Id rather leave the forest for my daughter than your gov's toxic legacy. Nice try though. Id start taking some classes in Nuclear Engineering though if I were you. Dont want to be left behind as thats all your contributing now.
hakaakah
2 years ago
and if your gonna come and
and if your gonna come and read what the PEOPLE have to say. Maybe you should listen to us and act accordingly. It is after all, OUR country!
pipeup
2 years ago
Ordering: An Athabasca River Water Cooler for the House
We are in such a sad state of affairs here in Canada when our governments continue to dismiss independent scientists, markets pressure and impacted communities, and do NOTHING but PR and spin when it comes to the tar sands. Wake up Canadians - we need to oust the Harper and Stelmach governments, or at least serve them daily doses of mercury poisoned water from the Athabasca until they figure out we have a problem here.
hakaakah
2 years ago
and in the news...a tanker
and in the news...a tanker filled with fossil fuels runs aground in the Northwest Passage. Yet another rig explosion in the Gulf.
How we doin on Nuclear incidents?
Search Thorium LFTR. The greener alternative.
Athabasca Concerned
2 years ago
It sure would be nice to get
It sure would be nice to get all the scientists in the same room and have them figure out why their data is so different. Hakaakah, I had the same proble with the website - there is a category "Miscellaneous and Water Quality Data" but nothing north of Fort Mac. I have been looking into this data the past while and the lack of access is frustrating. Interesting to note this goes both ways - I requested the Kelly/Schindler data and was told it is "confidential" and was eventually sent a confidentiallity agreement to sign. Looks like both sides have something to hide - typical. It will be dissapointing if the "indepedent scientists" have an agenda as well.
hakaakah
2 years ago
I think it was posted on
I think it was posted on Edmonton Journel website.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/24/1008754107.full.pdf+html
Looks like this is it.
G West
2 years ago
@ hakaakah
Thank You.
I notice our little friend from the government hasn't been back.
hakaakah
2 years ago
Of course. He didnt get the
Of course. He didnt get the answers or support he needs. An indication on his lack of respect for our voices in the action.
I found it interesting that shortly after I asked for the numbers so we could compare. Premier Stelmech summoned HIS scientists to do the same thing. Guy Fox day is just around the corner. Think we need to put some new faces on the dummies this year before torching them.
doggone
2 years ago
I'm logged in?
Oh well. I did read the article. Did not weep this time.
I guess these assholes will carry on what they do and you and I will also carry on commenting about that.
Politicians disconnected from reality?
Oh darn! What's next?
Des
2 years ago
As Soon As I Saw
the reference to "oil sands" rather than "tar sands" I knew there would not be any real or true information supplied by "David sands."
plg
2 years ago
thanks hakaakah
hakaakah thanks for unraveling another attempt by Alberta's Public Affairs Bureau David Sands to dis-inform the public.
It's also interesting to note that the BC Government's model for its current Public Affairs Bureau, located in the Premier's Office and lorded over by Martin Brown, was originally created by former staff members of the Premier's Offices of Alberta and Ontario.
After the 2001 BC election the autocratic regime of Gordon Campbell took over the reigns and brought with them an unelected horde from both Mike Harris' and Ralph Klein's inner sanctums. Out of this came the corralling of government information into a newly formed Public Affairs Bureau housed in the Premier's Office. Doing their best to prevent public information from being freely distributed to the public the BC PAB has reached a pinnacle of disinformation, disingenuous statements, deleting emails and paper shredding. It covets the award of having the worst freedom of information record in Canada.
So to call what David Sands and his BC cohorts practice "public affairs" is grossly incorrect. To put it bluntly, the word public should be replaced with the correct term, 'propaganda'.
Some former journalists leave their media conglomerates, Canwest-Quebecor, and form risky ventures like the Tyee or write independent investigative columns or books. Some go to work for government public affairs bureaus and live up to an old school term, "hack".
hakaakah
2 years ago
Despite his lack of moral
Despite his lack of moral fibre. I am glad he comes to read the REAL news. Thanks again for your articles Tyee/Andrew.
Open Democracy
2 years ago
Perhaps they've been drinking naphthenic acid?
As taxpayers, we need to be asking our MPs why a report on oil sands and water contamination that was undertaken by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development was destroyed after their June 17th, 2010 meeting. The Committee spent 18 months studying the effect of oil sands mining on water bodies in the Athabasca area, spent untold millions travelling from Ottawa to Ft. MacMurray to examine the issue first-hand and then took the unprecedented action of shredding all copies of the report. One issue that may have come up was the inclusion or exclusion of naphthenic acid as a toxic substance; these acids are one of the most significant toxins resulting from the processing of Athabasca tar sands. To read more about naphthenic acid, see:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2010/07/naphthenic-acid-want-to-drink-glassful.html
RickW
2 years ago
shepsil
That's right out of a scene from Erin Brockovitch:
"By the way, we had that water brought in specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195685/quotes
KD Brown
2 years ago
Simple questions muddied again...
This is the data that I want in order to make a decision as a citizen of Alberta and of Canada:
What is in the smoke from the stacks, the water from the pipes and the water in the ponds, released from the results of mining and processing the bitumen in the tar sands?
Are any of the materials that are in these places toxic to living things?
Do they accumulate in nature?
Will they be found in the tissue of living things, and be passed on to the animal that eats living things? Be passed on to the babies of living things?
Can they be easily and completely removed from places that we don't want them?
I want to hear "No" to the first questions and a "Yes" to the last, before I will agree that the tar sands are beneficial.
Otherwise we are being asked to accept a bunch of poison trash being tossed over the fence onto our yards, all of our yards.
The public liability created by industry must not out weigh the benefits. The public is being prevented from making sound, wise decisions about benefits. We have limited or no access to key information. We cannot reasonably be expected to make a sound and wise decision on the issue of the tar sands with no free access to data that would help us to answer the simple questions above.
The public is being asked to make choices and decide to magically behave better than present ways of doing business would ever accommodate. If this continues to be the case, we must obviously change the way that we do business.
RickW
2 years ago
David Sands
I would invite you to address KD Brown's "Simple questions muddied again..." post. Your credibility is on the line here.
morechatter
2 years ago
I bet you they aren't drinking the water
Water is everything
Like a soothing sonnet laid at her breast
the waters flowing movement lulls nature into a state of rest.
And the rivers and streams are the veins of our existence and are being put to the test.
Water is everything
And in the rivers darkness her cries are pacified as the waves work their magic like a soft, gentle touch of a caressing hand.
Water is everything
And as the dawn approaches the flowers burst open to the nectar of the Gods using the allure of their aroma to start new life
Water is everything
As the secrets of the universe can be found in a droplet of water up in the dawn of morning to a spectrum of the universal light
Water is everything to life.
I was feeling kinda creative and it is suching a moving subject so turned it into a poem.
And don't forget your morning coffee, like the frest morning dew, another wake up call as a morning without coffee will just never do.
hakaakah
2 years ago
OMG. This poor
OMG. This poor man!
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b4403804
MkumbaJoe
2 years ago
Beware of Government Scientists
Beware of Government scientists. They're the ones (Department of Fisheries scientists) who failed to raise the red flag when the cod industry was going belly up.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Same thing re: doing something about it.