U.S. ambassador in Alberta to learn about oilsands

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
Are there increased levels of mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), or arsenic in water bodies or animals in the oil sands region?

The Athabasca River region is unique because of the naturally occurring oil sands that the river runs through. Sediment from the banks of the river are caught in the current and because of this, there are naturally occurring contaminants in the water. Data from the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program indicates no increase in concentrations of contaminants as oil sands development has progressed.

The Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program also monitors polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) levels in the river. There is no doubt that PAHs are in the sediments downstream of the oil sands. This is due to the magnitude of the oily sand along the river banks through which the river has eroded naturally. PAH levels found in samples on other rivers in the area with absolutely no industrial oil sands activity have been found to be higher than samples taken downstream from oil sands developments. The sources in the area are natural.

There is evidence that PAH concentrations in delta sediments are lower in recent years than historically. This decrease is likely due to drier conditions in the last decade resulting in less erosion from these natural sources. Alberta Environment and Environment Canada are currently developing a research program to more fully address the impacts of these natural oil sands sediments on the ecology of Lake Athabasca and the delta.

Since Alberta Environment implemented trace analytical methods at our sampling stations we have seen that maximum concentrations of mercury are 8 parts per trillion prior to entering Lake Athabasca. The Alberta guideline, which is the most protective of any in North America, is 13 parts per trillion. To put it in perspective, a part per trillion is equivalent to one drop of detergent in enough water to fill a string of railroad tank cars 16 kilometres long.

For arsenic, all of the samples collected since 1990 have been below water guidelines. Alberta Health and Wellness has been actively sampling traditional foods in the area (e.g. wild meat) and found that arsenic concentrations in these were consistent with concentrations found elsewhere in Alberta and in the Yukon where there is no development.

Alberta Environment - Information Centre
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It's allways put back as close to original as possible,I took lots of before and after pics of my jobs,in most you cant tell anyone has been there after a week.

As economcially as possible you mean. There's always ways to get it closer to original, but that costs more money. That's the rub. How much is close enough?

I don't believe for one second that reclamation projects make the land better. You talked about planting grasses instead of restoring native forest, kryptic talked of leveling out the topography which is obviously going to alter downstream hydrology. For instance, do you have access to information like nutrient cycles, before and after? Do you have access to information like a Shannon index of biodiversity to compare before and after?

Anything else is simply hand-waving. Getting "close as possible" is not making it better than it was...
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
As economcially as possible you mean. There's always ways to get it closer to original, but that costs more money. That's the rub. How much is close enough?

I don't believe for one second that reclamation projects make the land better. You talked about planting grasses instead of restoring native forest, kryptic talked of leveling out the topography which is obviously going to alter downstream hydrology. For instance, do you have access to information like nutrient cycles, before and after? Do you have access to information like a Shannon index of biodiversity to compare before and after?

Anything else is simply hand-waving. Getting "close as possible" is not making it better than it was...

Thats the part we leave to the experts,they tell us what go's back and how.
We never mentioned planting grasses instead of native forest,you did.Thats why you allways strip off the #1 and #2 soils prior to any ground disturbance,its saved to go back where it came from.It's also tested for acidity constantly,even a single guy on a cat stripping for a lease or right of way will have at least one QC inspector,a couple enviro guys,biology guy or gal and they are either watching you steady or sampling the soils and they are very strict!
Mix your brown and black soil even a bit and they can and may run you right off the site,no questions asked.Kill a nesting bird and your shut down for 4 days.


The mines I worked at in BC for 22 years are like parks as far as the wildlife is concerned,they know its a no hunting zone and flourish there.They have one of the healthiest sheep populations with some being potential boone and crockett record holders.They now migrate to the reclaimed areas to have their young and they are collared and some have even been transported as far north as the luscar strip mine in grande cache but they came all the way back to the mine in BC for some reason.

That Alberta government link I posted has pretty well every study under the sun in it thats done.

Anyone who thinks the Government is industry friendly hasnt worked in the industry.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
No matter how you cut it, the tar sands are a stinky, smelly mess and they do damage the ecology. The following article was not written by an oil worker but this article and others convince me that damage is being done. Damage that will take decades to repair.

Emily Hunter is a Toronto-based environmental journalist and activist. Between Aug. 18 and Sept. 1st she traveled to the Alberta Tar Sands with MTV Canada. Her EcoHuntress blog on rabble.ca chronicles her journey.

Downstream to the tar sands

By Emily Hunter
| September 15, 2009



Today I went further north than many other individuals in Canada have gone. I went past Fort McMurray and the oil sands project itself by plane. I went past forests and sand dunes all the way to a place that is so remote it can only be reached by plane or a six-hour boat ride. I went to Fort Chipewyan, a settlement and community that as far removed as it is, has been gravely impacted by the tar sands.

Fort Chipewyan (also called Fort Chip) is plotted downstream of the dirty oil development. As the Athabasca River (the third largest water-shed in the world) runs straight through the tar sands and is right next to numerous toxic tailing ponds. This river runs north and feeds into the Athabasca Lake, the same lake that is home to the Fort Chip community.

The Alberta government and multinationals like Syncrude say that the water is clean, drinkable -- practically Evian water. They monitor the water specifically for toxic tailing pond seepage, which they claim if there is leakage that it's minimal and only placing "natural" components back into the water.

However, Mike Mercredi, a First Nations resident, told me a different story of his hometown of Fort Chip. His community was being killed off, he said, for the tar sands money. The water that used to be drinkable in the Athabasca Lake was no longer even swimmable because of toxins. The fish had deformities of crooked legs, humpbacks, bulging eyes and tumors -- the same fish that Fort Chip natives have eaten for centuries. He says that now over four dozen people in the small community have rare cancers or diseases. Two members of his family and his best friend (who was in his 20s) all died from cancer last year.

"We are the sacrificial goat to this black gold," says Mercredi.

Scientists and engineers too tell a different story. An engineer from Syncrude itself, Dr. Gord McKenna, said that the tailing ponds are "generally some of the weakest foundation conditions in the world." Made out of clay and dirt, they weren't meant to last.

In 2007, scientist Kevin Timoney found elevated levels of mercury, arsenic and PAH's in the Athabasca Lake affecting the water and fish. PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) discovery in particular became a point of tension in debates in Alberta.

PAHs have been found to be a human carcinogen, they are found in the toxic tailing ponds of the tar sands and now found in Athabasca Lake. They can produce rare cancers of the bile duct, the same cancer that has killed two in Fort Chip, possibly a claimed two to three more. This is particularly worrisome as bile duct cancer is found in one in every 100,000 people, while the Fort Chipewyan community has a population of 1,200 -- essentially the odds are impossible.

But PAH can be created from petroleum and non-petroleum sources. Therefore, it could be natural. The source of rare cancers and diseases in Fort Chip is what will unravel the "tar sands is good for us" argument. But because of so many vested interests there has been no independent study on the source despite the efforts of local physician, Dr. John O'Connor, appealing for years.

Instead whistleblowers are shut down or concealed. As Dr. O'Connor's efforts to protect Fort Chipewyan community's health was rewarded with an investigation and potentially his license may be stripped for raising "undue harm." But when I met Dr. O'Connor, it seemed hard pressed to find the soft-spoken, humble Irish man raising any undue harm even if his life depended on it.

However, until we make the connection as Canadians between the largest toxic collection on the planet (the tailing ponds of the tar sands) with downstream communities dying of rare cancers and diseases, we will continue to pump blood with oil as collateral damage.

For now, there are fresh graves in Fort Chipewyan community. Some small and some large, covered in colourful flowers, family pictures, favourite necklaces and one even had a teddy bear. Every month, Mercredi says, a new grave is plotted.

"I wonder who it will be next month?"

Emily Hunter's Journey to the Tar Sands airs this fall on MTV News Canada.
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
Emily hunter and MTV?
Your kidding right?
It's envirofoilers like her that tend to screw up the serious research with their bull****.
Maybe read the link I posted about Alberta's enviro laws,some of the most stringent in North America.
The studys show facts that cant be disputed,especially by an activist with an agenda.
Who are you going to believe,one activists or thousands of experts with facts and studys to back them up?
Here it is again and some big contradictions to your claims if you can bother to read it.Alberta Environment - Information Centre

This alone pretty well says she has no clue.



Today I went further north than many other individuals in Canada have gone. I went past Fort McMurray and the oil sands project itself by plane.
:roll:
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
Is human health being affected downstream from the oil sands?

The health of those living in the oil sands region and the ecosystem are paramount to the Alberta government and every concern is treated with great importance. We rely heavily on scientific testing and environmental monitoring to ensure the safety of all residents living near oil sands development.
Alberta Health and Wellness, in collaboration with the Alberta Cancer Board, conducted a health assessment of the population in Fort Chipewyan. The results were presented in Fort Chipewyan on July 25, 2006 and showed there was no evidence of increased rates of Grave’s disease, arthritis, congenital anomalies, asthma, leukemia, lymphoma, and other cancers in residents of Fort Chipewyan.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
We never mentioned planting grasses instead of native forest,you did.

So what part of "They make grasses grow where they didn't before" is not planting grasses? I asked you how they make it better, and you said they make grasses grow. I mean am I crazy, that seems pretty explicit to me...

That Alberta government link I posted has pretty well every study under the sun in it thats done.

Umm, which link was that. I see lots of stuff about reports that were to be prepared in 1998, and 1999. But I didn't see any reports...
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
So what part of "They make grasses grow where they didn't before" is not planting grasses? I asked you how they make it better, and you said they make grasses grow. I mean am I crazy, that seems pretty explicit to me...



Umm, which link was that. I see lots of stuff about reports that were to be prepared in 1998, and 1999. But I didn't see any reports...

Whats wrong with planting grasses where an oil seep was before?
Ground contaminated by mother nature is now producing grass? Why would you have a problem with that?

Reports? Read through the links,theres more then one page and they all have links to the other thousands of studys.
These studys and strict regs were brought on by environmentalists,now you have them but ignore them,why?

Whenever I try debate anyone on the oilsands it usually not long before I see it's just a hate Alberta thing.
Ignoring the facts and studys and the amount of people out in the field doing proactive work is just ignorance.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Is human health being affected downstream from the oil sands?

The health of those living in the oil sands region and the ecosystem are paramount to the Alberta government and every concern is treated with great importance. We rely heavily on scientific testing and environmental monitoring to ensure the safety of all residents living near oil sands development.
Alberta Health and Wellness, in collaboration with the Alberta Cancer Board, conducted a health assessment of the population in Fort Chipewyan. The results were presented in Fort Chipewyan on July 25, 2006 and showed there was no evidence of increased rates of Grave’s disease, arthritis, congenital anomalies, asthma, leukemia, lymphoma, and other cancers in residents of Fort Chipewyan.

They found 51 cancers in Fort Chip when the expected given the population demographics would have been 39. That is statistically significant, it's 30% above what would be expected. It also found elevated levels of Mercury in the downstream walleye.

Fish toxicologists have also confirmed elevated mercury and dioxins, depressed sex hormone levels, and abnormal lesions.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Whats wrong with planting grasses where an oil seep was before?

Nothing, if that's what was there before.

Ground contaminated by mother nature is now producing grass? Why would you have a problem with that?

See above. If that's what was there, there's no problem.

Reports? Read through the links,theres more then one page and they all have links to the other thousands of studys.

From which link? I opened both of them, and clicked through to a whole lot of stuff, but no actual studies. Is that how you cite something? Just throw up a link, and say have at 'er?

These studys and strict regs were brought on by environmentalists,now you have them but ignore them,why?

I'm not ignoring them, I don't see them. And who said that the authors were all environmentalists?

Whenever I try debate anyone on the oilsands it usually not long before I see it's just a hate Alberta thing.

Dude, shove it up your arse. I have relatives in Alberta. I've worked in Alberta. I don't hate it at all. If I did I would be quite happy to endorse the destruction of parts of it.

I'm only asking simple questions, and you keep evading.

Ignoring the facts and studys and the amount of people out in the field doing proactive work is just ignorance.

Well just post one study. Is that too much to ask? Jebus...
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
They found 51 cancers in Fort Chip when the expected given the population demographics would have been 39. That is statistically significant, it's 30% above what would be expected. It also found elevated levels of Mercury in the downstream walleye.

Fish toxicologists have also confirmed elevated mercury and dioxins, depressed sex hormone levels, and abnormal lesions.

Well maybe its just me but this is off your link and I think I'll trust the experts who went to school before your source,I think this quote show's what I mean.:roll:

Abstract The response of large river systems to human development isoften hard to predict. The spatial scale of these systems makes themdifficult to study and their ecology (particularly in the case of largenorthern rivers) is often poorly understood. To provide an ecologicalassessment of three large river basins in northern Canada, the NorthernRiver Basins Study (NRBS) undertook a multi-disciplinary approach toassess environmental and socio-economic impacts of development.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Well maybe its just me but this is off your link and I think I'll trust the experts who went to school before your source,I think this quote show's what I mean.:roll:

What the hell are you talking about? That study was conducted by experts, and reviewed by experts. Do you know what an abstract includes? A statement of the problem or research question, what was done, and what they found. You ignored the findings completely, in your selective quoting of the abstract.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
2002?
last review/updated: August 21, 2002
nrbs - home

table of contents

northern river basins study final report

6.0 workshop comments
6.3 discharge / river health



  • a goal of zero discharge should be pursued.
  • if zero discharge is not immediately attainable, then time lines should be established.
  • a moratorium or reduction on input should be put into place until we better understand causes of river problems.
  • there should be a cap on all expansion or additional loadings until we know more.
  • we need to work towards a closed loop system.
  • pollution prevention should be a guiding principle.
  • this is a good news study which shows industry's willingness to use the newest technology to reduce negative impacts on the river system.
  • municipalities should find ways to lower discharge. Governments should provide infrastructure support.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63

So,this report actually confirms the depressed levels of sex hormones found in the fish downstream from the industry in the study area, which is precisely what the study I referenced found.

The report indicates contaminant related stress in the invertebrates sampled. They found high enough contaminants to impair fertility in one of the test species.

The report found elevated incidences of external lesions, consistent with the petechial hemorrhaging that was found in the reference I cited.

Some limitations, they don't reveal the parameters of the model they used. They used models to predict concentrations based on contaminant discharges. They also used models to predict how it penetrates int the food chain. How on earth is this to be reproduced by another scientist who has observed conflicting results?

Most importantly, while your report has lots of claims, they never list the test statistics they use, or give the test statistics results when they say there is no significant effect. How does the reader know how to assess this claim without them? That's not typical at all of scientific study.

If you want to see what a real study looks like, try some of these:

http://biology.queensu.ca/~hodsonp/publications/Colavecchia%202007%20TEH%20Eye%20pathology%20Oil%20Sands.pdf

http://biology.queensu.ca/~hodsonp/publications/Colavecchia%202006%20JTEH.pdf

http://biology.queensu.ca/~hodsonp/publications/Colavecchia%20et%20al%202004.pdf
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
What the hell are you talking about? That study was conducted by experts, and reviewed by experts. Do you know what an abstract includes? A statement of the problem or research question, what was done, and what they found. You ignored the findings completely, in your selective quoting of the abstract.

Hard to take that site seriously when they cant even seperate 2 words in a sentence,good source bud.:roll:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Hard to take that site seriously when they cant even seperate 2 words in a sentence,good source bud.:roll:

:roll:

That site is just a client for the journal database, a journal which merged databases when the name changed. If you scroll down, you'd see that the abstract in press doesn't look like that at all.

I'm now going to ignore everything you say, because you can't spell the word separate correctly. Also, it's customary to leave a space after the comma...