Research released by the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health on the health effects of coal-fired power plants was reviewed prior to publication by TransAlta, one of Alberta’s largest utility providers and coal producers, documents released to The Narwhal under the Freedom of Information Act reveal.

More than 550 pages of emails and documents exchanged between TransAlta executives and University of Alberta researcher Warren Kindzierski show the company was heavily involved in assigning, reviewing and publicizing research that would promote the coal industry as the government moved forward with a province-wide coal phase-out.

The correspondence between Kindzierski and TransAlta show the researcher sought input from company executives on draft versions of his research, asking how the company would like to proceed based on his findings. Kindzierski also accompanied TransAlta executives to meetings with government officials where Kindzierski presented slides reviewed in advance by the company.

The documents also show Kindzierski offered pointers for TransAlta communications personnel to consider during the development of company messaging.

In one email to TransAlta, Kindzierski tells officials they will “not be disappointed” in his findings.

“These emails show a pretty close relationship between TransAlta and Dr. Kindzierski, and in some cases show that Dr. Kindzierski was aware of the outcome that TransAlta wanted from his research, which could facilitate bias in his research,” Andrew Read, a professional engineer and former senior analyst with the Pembina Institute who is now working with the city Edmonton’s environmental strategies team, told The Narwhal upon reviewing a portion of the documents.

“What would have happened if the research didn’t align with TransAlta’s interests? Would we have ever seen the publication then?”

TransAlta paid University of Alberta $54,000 for research on health impacts of coal

A previous Freedom of Information request found TransAlta is a regular funder of Kindzierski’s research at the University of Alberta. Those documents revealed TransAlta provided the University of Alberta $54,000 in exchange for research on the health impacts of coal-fired power plants near Edmonton.

The findings of that initial information request prompted The Narwhal to file a secondary request, asking for communications between Kindzierski and TransAlta during the time the research was undertaken.

TransAlta owns and operates Canada’s largest surface strip coal mine, the Highvale Mine. The 12,600-hectare coal mine, managed by TransAlta’s wholly-owned subsidiary Sunhills Mining, produces 13 million tonnes of thermal grade coal each year, which is used to power three of TransAlta’s power stations.

In September 2015 a national air quality study found Alberta had some of the worst air quality levels in Canada due to coal power plants, oil and gas development and vehicle use.

The new tranche of documents show that in light of that study, on September 10, 2015, Oliver Bussler, director of sustainable development at TransAlta, told Kindzierski his research would be “very timely” and asked, “since you are a recognized expert in this area, I was wondering if you have heard what the Environment Ministry may have planned to address the cause of air pollution.”

Kindzierski responded to Bussler’s email saying, “ ‘far-fetched’ would be a good way to characterize the lack of understanding of this issue.”

In April of 2015 the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), a public health and environmental advocacy group, released a study that showed that, according to government of Alberta figures, levels of harmful air pollution in Edmonton exceeded those of Toronto, a major metropolis with five times the population.

The study showed that during several winter days between 2010 and 2012, levels of particulate matter in Edmonton exceeded legal limits. Fine particulate matter, according to Alberta Environment, measures 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Red blood cells are 5 microns in diameter and the width of an average human hair is roughly 75 microns.

Because of its small size, fine particulate matter, referred to as PM2.5, can accumulate in the respiratory system and dissolve into the bloodstream, leading to chronic health effects and breathing problems.

A broad mix of emissions come from the burning of coal in addition to PM 2.5: SOx, NOx, mercury, cadmium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and benzenes. These pollutants have significant effects on respiratory and cardiovascular health and some are cancer-causing agents.

Kindzierski has published several studies showing pollutants in the Alberta airshed come from a mix of sources and not just coal. He has used his research to argue coal is being unfairly targeted and that harmful impacts associated with burning coal are overblown.

According to public disclosure records, Kindzierski made $194,670.22 in salary and benefits at the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health in 2016. He made $189,603.06 in 2015.

TransAlta provided at least another $175,000 to the University of Alberta between 2013 and 2015 through additional sponsorship arrangements that are not transparent to the public, raising concerns about the movement of industry funds through public institutions.

‘Remove the slides’

In a series of e-mails between Kindzierski and Bussler the two discussed a presentation Kindzierski would make to Alberta government officials regarding his research.

Kindzierski provided Bussler with a draft version of a presentation, which Bussler said he would review and “provide feedback.”

Kindzierski offered to remove material in his presentation related to the CAPE study: “We can possibly remove the slides related to 2010/CAPE claim.”

Bussler replied: “I have no concerns with including the slides related to 2010/CAPE claim. Since the CAPE claims are on everyone’s’ minds [sic], I think it would be best to address them upfront.”

The documents show Kindzierski made alterations in his presentation in advance of a series of meetings with government officials.

“We have reorganized the presentation, putting the majority of the technical details in the appendix,” Kindzierski wrote to Bussler on September 12, 2015.

“The presentation looks good from my perspective,” Bussler replied. “Since my colleagues are more familiar with the policy maker audience to whom you will be presenting, I’m going to see if they have any final comments on the materials.”

In another e-mail Bussler noted: “It is not my intention to suggest what you should say. The study is very much your work and independent. I do however think it is important how we decided [sic] to relay the information should consider the audience.”

A spokesperson for the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health said as an independent researcher hired by TransAlta, Kindzierski “was obligated to present his findings to TransAlta for preview prior to publication.”

“At the University of Alberta, we value intellectual integrity, freedom of inquiry and expression, and the equality and dignity of all persons as the foundation of ethical conduct in research, teaching, learning, and service,” the spokesperson said.

“It is our position that Kindzierski has acted according to these values and conducted his research and communication of that research, ethically and responsibly.”

Kindzierski declined to provide further comment, saying “all the comments I would have, they were provided by the university officially.”

Read said universities need to take claims of bias in research very seriously.

“It’s critical to resolve and make clear to the public they are providing independent research that can be relied on legitimately,” he said.

Industry-funded research concluded coal-fired power plants safe for health of local residents

Kindzierski’s research, published on TransAlta’s website in the spring of 2016 and bearing the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health insignia, concluded coal-fired power plants near the city of Edmonton do not negatively impact the health of local residents.

In a previous interview Kindzierski said the study had been accepted for publication at three peer-reviewed “high-quality impact journals.”

However, in an e-mail to Don Wharton, TransAlta’s vice-president of policy and sustainability, Kindzierski writes the study accepted for publication is not the one published on TransAlta’s website.

“Our study being published is actually different than what we did last fall; but the news from your perspective is just as good,” Kindzierski wrote to Wharton.

In the same exchange Kindzierski asks Wharton to extend TransAlta’s funding contract for two months. “This allows me to continue funding the research assistant on your contract,” he wrote.

Additional emails exchanged between Kindzierski and Wharton show Kindzierski actively solicited feedback from the company on draft versions of his research.

In an email dated October 15, 2015, Kindzierski provided Wharton with a copy of the draft report. Two days later Kindzierski sent a revised version of the report to Wharton and followed up after a week, asking if company representatives had any response.

“Don, I hope things are going well,” Kindzierski wrote on October 28, 2015. “I would like to check with you about any feedback from the draft report we provided with you [sic]11 days ago and finalizing the report.”

On November 3, Kindzierski wrote Wharton again: “I am just checking again about whether you have any feedback on our report.”

In November 2015 Alberta announced a plan to eliminate the province’s 18 coal-fired power plants by 2030. Alberta uses more coal for power production than all other Canadian provinces combined.

Wharton responded on November 19, saying he had discussed Kindzierski’s findings with the mayors of more than 30 municipalities in Alberta who had expressed concern over the province’s plan to shutter coal plants.

“We have had a request from the mayors…to see the report as soon as it is available,” Wharton wrote to Kindzierski. “You may have noticed that these same mayors have been in the media lately expressing concern about the spectre of accelerated coal plant closures and the effects on their communities.”

In a submission to the Alberta Climate Change Advisory Panel TransAlta referred to Kindzierski’s research as “commissioned independent work through the University of Alberta” that was done “in response to continued unsubstantiated claims that coal-fired generation was a major contributor to Edmonton’s air quality events, and a rationale for the need to accelerate the retirement of coal units.”

Read, now with the City of Edmonton, said it’s clear TransAlta used Kindzierski’s research to lobby municipalities.

“This wouldn’t be a problem if we knew with certainty the research was unbiased,” Read said. “The real worry I see with this specific case is one of disregarding certain perspectives arbitrarily because of whatever interests that individual might have.”

From a public interest perspective, Read added, air quality issues in Alberta are of high concern.

Kindzierski’s research raises questions about the primacy of the public interest in work bearing the University of Public Health’s branding.

Joe Vipond, a physician and board member of CAPE, said he believes Kindzierski’s research was funded explicitly to find evidence there is no effect of burning coal in Edmonton’s airsheds.

“TransAlta, I would surmise, did not fund Kindzierski’s modeling in some altruistic effort to understand the effects of TransAlta’s own coal plants on Edmonton’s airshed,” Vipond said.

“He has even gone so far as to suggest that instead of air pollution being harmful to human health, it is neutral, or even possibly beneficial. This would be analogous to me, as a physician, to stating smoking is good for you.”  

Last year Vipond launched a complaint against Kindzierski with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) for violating his professional code of conduct as outlined in the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act. The Narwhal has learned the investigation into Kindzierski has been ongoing for over 12 months and relates to complaints made by at least one additional individual.

Vipond said he finds it disturbing Kindzierski participated in TransAlta’s presentations to government as a representative of the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health.

“It nauseates me to think our institutions have been corrupted in such a manner.”

Sloan d’Entremont, professional engineer and investigator with APEGA, said the organization’s policy is not to comment on ongoing investigations.

”Due to confidentiality reasons, APEGA Investigations is not able to discuss anything related to complaints that are submitted to the Investigations Department,” she said.

Kindzierski TransAlta Correspondence Excerpts by The Narwhal on Scribd

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

"Transparent,” “credible, “world-class” — those are just a few of the words that have been deployed to detail the aspirations of the one-year-old organization tasked with monitoring the air, water, land and wildlife in Alberta.

But there are a lot of questions about whether the Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA), funded primarily by industry, has lived up to its goal to track the condition of the province’s environment.*

Unlike the Alberta Energy Regulator, which the new NDP government is considering splitting into two agencies to separate its conflicting responsibilities to both promote and policy energy development, AEMERA hasn’t spent much time in the public spotlight — yet.

Last October, Alberta’s auditor general slammed the agency for releasing its 2012-2013 annual report in June 2014, well after when it should have been released. The auditor general also said the report “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies.”

Many of the agency’s projects were missing several details and the auditor general cautioned such omissions “may jeopardize AEMERA’s ability to monitor the cumulative effects of oil sands development.”

And that’s a pretty big problem. Because if Canada is to feasibly establish a strong environmental record, it’s going to need stringent monitoring in Alberta, especially in the Lower Athabasca region where the bulk of the province’s energy industry operates.

The Birth of A Really Long Acronym: AEMERA

AEMERA was dreamt up in 2011 as a means to coalesce the dozens of monitoring organizations working in the province under one banner, firewalling the result from government and industry to avoid conflicts of interest.

Martin Olszynski, an assistant professor in law at University of Calgary who specializes in environmental law, notes that at the time of the agency’s inception, international pressure was limiting market access for oil.

“When someone went to check on the monitoring system, it turned out it was a mess,” Olsznynski says. “We weren’t getting the data that we needed.”

AEMERA — with the Joint Canada-Alberta Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring serving as the transition agency for the three years prior to its official birth — was crafted to solve that problem.

Yet Bill 31, the piece of legislation that conjured up the arms-length agency in late 2013, faced considerable criticism from the get-go. Opposition parties pleaded for more than a dozen amendments.

Many of the proposed tweaks would have addressed the tight relationship between government and the monitoring agency. Amongst other things, the legislation suggested the environment minister would appoint the board and choose when data was released to the public.

Shaun Fluker, an associate professor of law at the University of Calgary, wrote in a 2014 post that the latter provision “arguably undermines the whole structure and suggests that politics can and will override science and transparency on environmental monitoring and reporting.”

All the proposed amendments were shot down. Lorne Taylor, former environment minister under Ralph Klein and renowned anti-Kyoto Accord activist, was appointed as chair of the board. Little has changed since.

Unlike other agencies, AEMERA doesn’t mandate quotas for groups or interests on the board. As a result, Bigstone Cree elder Mike Beaver is the sole indigenous representative on the agency’s seven-member board.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, a method of integrating indigenous worldviews into policymaking, was listed as a priority in AEMERA’s founding document — yet the auditor generals’ report noted that just three of 38 of AEMERA’s projects surveyed involved Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

Val Mellesmoen, spokesperson for AEMERA, says the organization is working hard to foster strong relationships with indigenous people. In mid-June, the organization appointed a Traditional Ecological Knowledge panel to focus on such issues.

Insufficient Funding for Mobile Air Monitoring Van

Then there’s the overarching issue of funding. Exactly $50 million was decided upon as the max that industry would contribute per year, a number that features a “conspicuously round nature,” Olszynski says.

In late March, news broke that the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association — historically the recipient of the largest amount of money for monitoring — couldn’t afford the $500,000 price tag for a new mobile air monitoring testing van on account of a lack of funding.

Andrew Read, policy analyst at the Pembina Institute, says there’s no public information available as to why $50 million was chosen as the funding cap; he has submitted multiple requests to the federal government (which coordinated the interim monitoring framework prior to AEMERA’s takeover), but hasn’t received any clarification.

Mellesmoen, the agency’s spokesperson, says it was a “gentlemen’s agreement” with the number determined by “an initial estimate that was based on industry providing an overview of what they felt they were currently spending as individual companies.”

Mellesmoen — who previously served as Taylor’s spokesperson when he was an MLA and minister — says there are questions within the agency about the reasoning for the cap.

“Even that funding model needs to be maybe looked at in the long run,” she says.

New NDP Government Could Amend Bill 31

Olszynski says the newly elected NDP could amend Bill 31 to deal with such issues. Prior to being elected as premier, Rachel Notley was an outspoken critic of the monitoring agency, at one point asserting the organization was “nowhere near ready to assume responsibility for the [Lower Athabasca] region.”

The NDP’s platform also pledged to “strengthen environmental standards, inspection, monitoring and enforcement to protect Alberta’s water, land and air.”

This week’s decision to revisit the Alberta Energy Regulator’s mandate represents that focus. The press secretary for Minister of Environment Shannon Phillips didn’t respond to multiple requests for an interview on the subject.

International Experts to Evaluate Oilsands Monitoring

An international panel composed of six scientists will evaluate the performance of the new monitoring system. It plans to “evaluate the extent to which the implementation of the Joint Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) has improved the scientific integrity of environmental monitoring in the oil sands.”

The panel will deliver its report this fall, which will “help determine the next steps on the oilsands monitoring design and implementation.”

Olszynski emphasizes the uniqueness of AEMERA

“It’s an experiment, an innovative one, an important one,” he says.

Yet there’s much more to be done: stable funding must be solidified, the line between cabinet and organization must be clarified and the data must be analyzed and reported on in a way that regular Albertans can understand. AEMERA also has to expand its monitoring province-wide to fulfill its mandate.

“AEMERA needs to step out and demonstrate that they’re acting in the public interest,” Read says. “We want to see a demonstration of AEMERA actively taking and delivering that unbiased information to the government and providing a perspective on the current state of the environment.”

* Clarification Notice: This article originally stated that AEMERA is funded 100 per cent by industry. While AEMERA gets the bulk of its funding from industry, the agency also receives government funding for general operations and monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities in other areas of the province

Image: Kris Krug via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Last week the Alberta government responded to the U.S. State Department's final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) on the Keystone XL project by emphasizing the province's responsibility, transparency, and confidence that the pipeline is in the "national interest" of both Canada and the U.S.

In a statement, Alberta Premier Alison Redford appealed to the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Premier Redford pointed out that the FSEIS had "recognized the work we're doing to protect the environment," saying that "the approval of Keystone XL will build upon the deep relationship between our countries and enable further progress toward a stronger, cleaner and more stable North American economy."

Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Robin Campbell also issued a statement, mentioning Alberta's "strong regulatory system" and "stringent environmental monitoring, regulation and protection legislation."

Campbell's reminder that the natural resource sector "provides jobs and opportunities for families and communities across the country" was similar to Premier Redford's assurance that "our government is investing in families and communities," with no mention made of corporate interests.

In order to provide a more specific and sciene-based response to the FSEIS report on Keystone XL, Pembina Institute policy analyst Andrew Read provided counterpoints to several of its central claims.

1. Oilsands Emissions

The U.S. State Department's report claims that "Alberta's oil sands account for about 5 per cent of Canada's overall GHG emissions and Canada is responsible for about 2 per cent of global emissions."

Read says that "oilsands are the fastest growing source of emissions in Canada," and industry and government have been unable to curtail rising emissions in contrast to other industrial sectors. Emissions in 2011 from mining and oil and gas extraction were up 450 per cent from 1990 levels, 200 per cent from 2000 levels and 93 per cent from 2005 levels. These rising numbers are "primarily attributable to oilsands expansion and transportaion emissions" according to federal reports, says Read.

The FSEIS mentions the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, passed in 2003, as establishing mandatory annual GHG intensity reduction targets for large industrial GHG emitters. But these targets have only been around since 2007 with the passing of Specified Gas Emitters Regulation.

2. Carbon Capture and Storage

The report mentions that the Alberta government has devoted $2 billion to fund "four large-scale CCS [Carbon Capture and Storage] projects," with two involving oilsands producers. The Alberta government has actually committed to spending around $1.4 billion to support the two CCS projects involving oilsands upgrading. The projects are only expected to reduce 2.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually, not 15.2 million tonnes, as claimed by the U.S. State Department.

For more on Alberta's failed CCS plans, read DeSmog Canada's two-part series.

3. In Situ Recovery of Bitumen

The FSEIS claims that 80 per cent of oilsands bitumen is recovered through in situ techniques using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage), which is "less disturbing to the land surface than surface mining and does not require tailings ponds."

While 80 per cent of bitumen is too deep to mine, only 50 per cent is currently produced in situ. Furthermore, the FSEIS ignores the downsides of in situ exploration and development, which disrupts ecosystems by creating "fragmentation of habitats" and "pathways for increased predation," and is also land intensive. In situ extraction techniques are also more greenhouse gas intensive than mining techniques, and increased production from those sources will ultimately lead to an increase in GHG emissions.

4. Water Withdrawals

The FSEIS reports that all approved oilsands projects can "withdraw no more than 3 per cent of the average annual flow of the Athabasca River," with 2008 withdrawals coming to 0.8 per cent of the long-term average annual flow.

Read emphasizes that these numbers are misleading because water withdrawals "are not halted when river flows reach extremely low levels that can result in damage to the Athabasca." For example, in winter periods when river flows are much lower withdrawals have been seen to reach 15 per cent of river flow. Read says that "comparing withdrawals to average flows masks the seasonal variability that is observed on the river."

The FSEIS also claims water use by oilsands operations has continued to decrease despite increased production, with many in situ operations recycling up to 90 per cent of water used. But this decrease is only on a "water use per barrel basis," with total water usage increasing due to expanded production. Furthermore, even water recycled during oilsands operations is permanently removed from the ecosystem, along with the 10 per cent additional water required.

5. Air Quality Monitoring

The FSEIS claims that long-term air quality monitoring "since 1995 shows improved or no change in CO, ozone, fine particulate matter, and SO2, and an increasing trend in NO2."

Read notes that over that 10-year period, there has been a lot of fluctuation in the ambient air concentration of these pollutants. Particularly, NO2 and SO2 have been seen to spike during certain periods. However, particulate matter "has been increasing at certain monitoring sites in the oilsands region." The Canadian government is also showing elevated levels of fine particulate matter above their own 2015 target in the "prairies and northern Ontario" region which contain the oilsands developments.

6. Tailings

The FSEIS observes that "processing 1 tonne (1.1 tons) of oilsand produces about 94 liters (25 gallons) of Tailings," to which Read responds that 1.5 barrels of tailings are produced for every barrel of bitumen mined from the oilsands.

The volume of tailings will continue to grow "more than 40 per cent from 830 million cubic metres to more than 1.2 billion cubic metres in 2030," and will continue to grow until stabilizing at 1.3 billion cubic metres around 2060, says Read.

A recent Environment Canada study found toxic chemicals from tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and the Athabasca River.

7. Land Reclamation

The FSEIS reports that "602 km2 (232 mi2) have been disturbed by oilsands mining activity of which 67 km2 (26 mi2) has been or is in the process of reclamation."

The actual area of land disturbed by oilsands development is 715 square kilometres (71,500 hectares). Out of that, "only 1.04 square kilometres (104 hectares) is certified by the government as reclaimed." The FSEIS's figure is closer to the amount of land unofficially reclaimed (65 square kilometres), but this self-reported claim remains unverified due to "a lack of regulated standards and requirements to reclaim land as further land is disturbed," says Read.

Read puts the estimated cost of reclaiming the disturbed land, based on available government and industry data, at $10-$15 billion, or approximately $220,000 to $320,000 per hectare.

8. Potential Impacts and Environmental Monitoring

The FSEIS states that "Alberta has committed to a cumulative effects approach that looks at potential impacts of all projects within a region," and requires oilsands operations to have plans to "minimize their effects on wildlife and biodiversity." The report also mentions that the Alberta government "monitors and verifies" that these plans are undertaken.

Alberta and Canada have continued to approve projects that have been shown to have "significant and irreversible" adverse environmental effects through the environmental review process. There are also concerns about the enforcement of these rules. Read points to a 2013 report that surveyed 9,000 reported incidents in the oilsands, and found that "less than one percent of likely environmental infractions drew any enforcement."

Images: Kris Krug via flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto has found that air pollution emissions released by oilsands operations in Alberta are likely two to three times higher than previously estimated.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed U.S. journal, modeled levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) released by oilsands bitumen extraction. PAHs are toxic air pollutants released by the burning of fossil fuels, and can be highly carcinogenic.

"When dealing with chemicals that have such great potential to harm people and animals, it is absolutely vital that we truly understand how, and how much they are being released into the environment," said Abha Parajulee, co-author of the report, in a press release.

The researchers found PAH estimates "in environmental impact assessments conducted to approve developments in the Athabasca oil sands region are likely too low."

The study raises concerns about the accuracy of government-conducted environmental impact assessments on the oilsands, following the recent U.S. State Department report on Keystone XL, which claimed that the pipeline would have little environmental impact.

"If you use these officially reported emissions for the oil sands area you get an emissions density that is lower than just about anywhere else in the world," study co-author Frank Wania said. Wania is professor in the department of physical and environmental sciences at the University of Toronto.

Corporate estimates for oilsands pollution were "inadequate and incomplete," said Wania, insisting that a "complete and accurate account of the emissions" would be required before it is possible to "make a meaningful assessment of the environmental impact and of the risk to human health."

Previous government-approved estimates for PAH emissions from the oilsands, which fall within regulatory levels, do not take into account indirect pathways for the pollutant to enter the atmosphere, including evaporation from tailing ponds.

The researchers said that their model's predictions are consistent with actual PAH measurements taken near the Athabasca oilsands region by academic scientists and Environment Canada, which are much higher than reported industry estimates.

The researchers' model also factored in PAHs released by transport and storage of waste materials in oilsands production.

"Tailing ponds are not the end of the journey for the pollutants they contain. PAHs are highly volatile, meaning they escape into the air much more than many people think," Parajulee said.

"It was shocking to me to understand that current environmental impact assessments do not take [the volatility of PAHs] into account at all," said Jonathan Martin, an associate professor in the department of environmental toxicology at the University of Alberta, who reviewed the study before its publication.

"It just shows how little we know," Martin said. He added that PAH measurements need to be taken above tailing ponds to confirm the research model's projections, which would require corporate permission.

Wania said that Environment Canada has shown interest in the report's findings, and has agreed to fund further research.

"We are not at the world-class level to really be championing that," said Andrew Read, a researcher with Pembina Institute, and a member of the joint oilsands monitoring program. Read expressed doubt that there was adequate funding to properly monitor oilsands emissions.

"There is a concern there that we are not doing the effective monitoring that is necessary to really understand the full impact on the environment," Read said.

The results of the University of Toronto-funded study were published Monday.

Image Credit: Kris Krug

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.