Oilsands monitoring programs aren’t quite living up to expectations.

That was the conclusion presented by a six-person expert panel in Edmonton on February 22.

The two organizations that were examined — the Joint Canada-Alberta Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) and Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) — have improved in performance in recent years, according to the review.

But the organizations have largely failed at actually conducting analysis of the data collected about the four component areas: air, water, wildlife contaminants and toxicology, and biodiversity and land disturbance.

In addition, both JOSM and AEMERA have lacked clear mandates, a fact that has “severely hampered” success.

“The work of the Panel was made more challenging by the absence of an overarching document that clearly articulates the policy and scientific goals of the Governments of Canada and Alberta for oil sands monitoring,” according to the report, which was commissioned by AEMERA and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

AEMERA Struggling to Fulfill Mandate

Such revelations didn’t come as much a shocker for Martin Olszynski, assistant professor in law at University of Calgary who specializes in environmental and natural resources law.

“As someone who’s tried to use the data that’s been generated, I wasn’t surprised at all,” he says. “It’s very hard for anyone without training in all of the metrics. It’s very technical data that someone like myself — and I’m not a total novice when it comes to this — couldn’t make heads or tails of.”

AEMERA was established after Bill 31 — also known as the Protecting Alberta’s Environment Act — received royal assent in December 2013. Prior to then the JOSM handled the monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities.

But the hand-off of responsibilities to AEMERA hasn’t been straight-forward. The new organization, which receives most funding from industry, works with a limited budget of $50 million and has gone through three chiefs executives since its inception.

The province’s auditor general also shamed the organization in his October 2014 report for a lack of clarity and failure to include key details in reporting.

Programs Receive ‘B’ Grade from Panel

To be sure, the panel’s review praised data collection by the two organizations. Clarkson University’s Philip Hopke, who served as chair of the panel, gave the programs a ‘B’ grade at the press conference. There have been increases in sampling sites, frequency of sampling and geographical coverage.

Olszynski says it’s “mostly a good news story.”

But the data collected between 2012 and 2015 still hasn’t been processed or published in a way that can be understood by the public. It’s a problem that was predicted back in a June 2011 report by the Alberta Environmental Monitoring Panel, which emphasized that “monitoring by itself is not sufficient.”

“The value that the environmental monitoring system brings to stakeholders will only be fully realized with appropriate information dissemination activities,” noted the authors of the report.

Results Could be Suppressed

It’s an issue that Olszynski has observed for a long while. He says the translation of information to something that laypeople can understand is imperative to the success of the program.

An associated problem is that AEMERA isn’t yet a “household name,” meaning reporting that carried politically negative news (say, as a hypothetical, increased air pollution in a certain site) could be more easily muffled.

“Unfortunately, because they haven’t done that work to transmit that information that average Albertans and other stakeholders can use, my fear is that if tomorrow Alberta said ‘yeah, we understand this but we’re just not prepared to go ahead with this,’ I don’t think there would be much of a fuss that they would kick up,” he says.

Funding Woes in Tough Economic Times

Fred Wrona, vice-president and chief scientist at AEMERA, noted earlier this month that the organization is preparing to present findings this fall. In addition, AEMERA will be increasing staff numbers from 85 to 130 in the coming years.

The panel noted the utility of the information portal could be boosted with additional funding. However, Olszynski’s skeptical of the likelihood of “significant investments and resources” being directed towards the organization given current economic circumstances.

“I’m not sure it’s going to happen in the next couple of years,” he says. “That’s maybe forgivable.”

“But at least stay the course, don’t abandon the thing entirely,” he advises. “Keep it working as it is. It would be nice to have that comprehensive analysis now, but it’s not the end of the world if we don’t, and other people can maybe step up. But don’t stop collecting that data or doing the actual work of monitoring.”

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.

There are more than 176 square kilometres of tailings ponds holding waste from oilsands development in the area around Fort McMurray, Alberta. According to new research released from Environment Canada, those tailings ponds are emitting much higher levels of toxic and potentially cancer-causing contaminants into the air than previously reported.

As the Canadian Press reports, Environment Canada scientist Elisabeth Galarneau is the first to conduct field studies in the region and her research confirms that previous estimates of chemical release into the air have been massively underestimated.

“We found that there actually does appear to be a net flow of these compounds going from water to air,” Galarneau told the Canadian Press. “It’s just a bit under five times higher from the ponds than what’s been reported.”

A previous study used modeling to estimate potential chemical release, but Galarneau’s study, published recently in the journal of Atmospheric Environment, relied on air samples and filters located in the study region.

Joint federal-provincial monitoring program called into question

Galarneau’s research was conducted under the joint federal-provincial monitoring program, a new three-year plan announced by Canada and Alberta in early 2012.

The monitoring program recently came under fire from Alberta’s auditor general, Merwan Saher, after the group released its first report that Saher found “lacked clarity and key information and contained inaccuracies.”

A report for the year leading up to March 31, 2013 was released in June, 2014, 15 months after the program’s first year end and a full nine months after it was due. Saher said the delay in the report was “disturbing” and “made the report less relevant.”

In a statement to the Canadian Press, Environment Canada said Galarneau’s research is a part of the government’s commitment to tracking industry impacts.

“The government of Canada and Alberta remain committed to ensuring that data from the monitoring activities and the scientific methods used are transparent, supported by necessary quality assurance and made publicly available to allow independent scientific assessments and evaluations,” an Environment Canada spokesperson wrote in an email.

1,069 kilograms of oilsands toxins from tailings released into air each year

The research found 1,069 kilograms of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), oil-derived toxins that are known to cause cancer in animals and humans, are released from tailings directly into the air each year.

According to Galarneau’s research abstract, the most recent emissions reports to Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory only totaled 231 kilograms.

“These results indicate that tailings ponds may be an important PAH source to the atmosphere that is missing from current inventories in the [oilsands region],” the abstract states.

Pollutant emissions may be key to understanding oilsands’ environmental impacts

In 2012 federal scientists from Environment Canada presented research at a toxicology conference that confirmed contaminants from the oilsands were polluting a much larger area on land than previously thought.

A team led by scientist Jane Kirk found contamination, including PAHs, in lakes as far as 100 kilometres away from Fort McMurray, the centre of oilsands development.

In that presentation senior federal scientist Derek Muir said the contaminated region is larger than anticipated with a ‘legacy’ of chemicals building up in lake sediment. Another federal scientist Joanne Parrott presented research on the toxicity of water from snow melt in the oilsands region. Parrott said larval fish exposed to melted snow from the area did very poorly in the contaminated water.

A report released in early 2014 by researchers at the University of Toronto found that the reported level of PAHs released by bitumen extraction were “inadequate and incomplete.” The study found pollution emissions in the oilsands were likely two to three times higher than industry estimates.  

The new research released by Environment Canada could give some insight into how oilsands contaminants make their way into the surrounding environment.

Galarneau, however, said the new research doesn’t study what happens to the chemicals once they enter the atmosphere or give any indication as to the consequences of the pollution.

“We have to consider the ambient measurements and the deposition. The computer modeling simulations that’s needed to put all the pieces together hasn’t been done yet.”

Environmental contamination is a major concern for local communities and First Nations who have suffered elevated rates of cancer in their communities and report strange deformities in local wildlife and fish.

A health study released by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree in collaboration with the University of Manitoba found high concentrations of PAHs and heavy metals, arsenic, mercury, cadmium and selenium in kidney and liver samples from moose, duck, muskrats and beavers trapped by community members. The pollutants were found to be “positively associated” with oilsands development.

Galarneau said more testing and more sophisticated testing is needed to better understanding her findings.

“We would certainly like more information from more facilities’ ponds.”

Image Credit: Hot waste filling tailings pond at Suncor Mining site. Photo by Alex McLean.

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.