Mercury levels have risen to 16 times the regional "background" levels in an area around oilsands developments in northeastern Alberta, according to Environment Canada researchers.

Environment Canada researcher Jane Kirk, who presented the as-yet unpublished report at a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) conference in Nashville last November, told Postmedia News the affected area encompasses 19,000 square kilometres around oilsands operations.

Margaret Munro of Postmedia News reports that Kirk told the conference the area is "currently impacted by airborne Hg (mercury) emissions originating from oilsands developments."

The mercury levels fall off gradually with increasing distance from the oilsands "like a bull's eye," said co-researcher Derek Muir, head of Environment Canada's ecosystem contaminants dynamics section. The highest mercury loadings, which reached up to 1,000 nanograms per square metre, were found in the "middle of the bull's eye," covering around 10 percent of the impacted area.

In October, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq signed a global treaty pledging to decrease mercury emissions.

The federal researchers stressed that the findings were still lower than mercury levels found in southern Ontario and southern Quebec, where toxins from incinerators and coal-burning power plants are affecting the environment.

But the scientists said that mercury is "the number one concern" when looking at toxins released by oilsands production, with "indications that the toxin is building up in some of the region's wildlife." The contamination is further worrying to environmental groups and First Nations concerned about the oilsands' impact on fishing, hunting and wildlife.

Environment Canada wildlife scientist Craig Herbert told the toxicology conference that the eggs of several species of waterbirds downstream of the oilsands have been showing increasing levels of mercury, with levels found in the majority of Caspian Tern eggs in 2012 exceeding "the lower toxicity threshold."

Kirk's team measured contaminants in cores of the snowpack collected from over 100 sites near the oilsands every March, to calculate how much pollution enters the ecosystem at spring melt after gathering in snow over winter.

The team's 2011 results confirmed that "aerial loadings" of 13 priority pollutant elements including mercury were 13 to 15 times higher at sites within 50 km of the upgraders that convert bitumen into synthetic crude oil, and "highest within 10 km of the upgraders," according to the presentation abstract.

The results "support earlier findings that the bitumen upgraders and local Oil Sands development are sources of airborne emissions to the Alberta Oil Sands Region."

The researchers also found up to 19 nanograms of methyl mercury per square metre near oilsands sites, which is 16 times the region's background level. Postmedia News reports that this is the first finding of this more toxic form of mercury in snow. The finding is significant because, as the abstract explains, "methyl mercury is a neurotoxin that bioaccumulates through foodwebs."

"Here we have a direct source of methyl mercury being emitted in this region and deposited to the landscapes and water bodies," Kirk told Postmedia News. "So come snowmelt that methyl mercury is now going to enter lakes and rivers where potentially it could be taken up directly by organisms and then bioaccumulated and biomagnified though food webs."

Muir said that microbes in the snow could be converting mercury into methyl mercury, or that it could be coming from "dust and land disturbances," though there is currently no data to support this.

"To our knowledge, emissions data from blowing dusts due to various landscape disturbances (open pit mines, exposed coke piles, new roads, etc.) and volatilization from tailing ponds are not publicly available," the researchers said.

The research shows that zinc, nickel and vanadium levels in lake sediments peaked in the 1990s following oilsands development, but have fallen off since, which Kirk attributes to "improvements in the air pollution catcher technology at the upgraders."

But levels of mercury and other "crustal elements" in lake sediments have been "going up more or less continually" with the expansion of the oilsands, said Muir, with open pit mines and coke piles possibly contributing to the pollution.

The fact remains that more research is required on why mercury levels are going up and the impact it's having on ecosystems.

"Is it affecting fish levels and is it going to result in increasing fish consumption advisories? We don't know," said Kirk.

But Environment Canada's latest results only confirm the need to further study and address the serious impacts of oilsands development.

Image Credit: Elias Schewel / 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.

What a difference a decade makes – especially when it comes to government-directed communications policies regarding science, and especially when you're in Canada. 

In 2003 a Canadian-American research collaboration, involving scientists from US universities and Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), began in the Eastern Arctic to track oceanic conditions and ice flow in the Nares Strait.

During its early stages, government rules regarding communication and publication about the project were meant to encourage scientific and academic freedom: "Data and any other project-related information shall be freely available to all Parties to this Agreement and may be used, disseminated or published, at any time," the agreement reads.

Now, under new restrictions imposed by DFO officials, scientists are prevented from sharing any information with a third party without the explicit consent of a high-ranking bureaucrat. According to the 2013 agreement, all technology and information related to DFO research, even if conducted in collaboration with outside parties, is "deemed to be confidential and neither party may release such information to others in any way whatsoever without prior written authorization of the other party."

For one American academic currently collaborating with DFO in the Arctic, this type of policy suppresses the free flow of scientific information and is a "potential muzzle." Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware is the avid blogger behind "Icy Seas: Scientific Musings of a Sailor in a Changing Climate" and fears the strict new policy will prevent him and other scientists from publishing about their project.

Under the new guidelines DFO managers decide how scientists like Muenchow use the scientific information they gather in their work, leaving the fate of scientific communication regarding the project in the hands of bureaucrats and not scientists.

After the January 29 memo outlining the new communications protocol was highlighted yesterday by Postmedia's Margaret Munro scientists like Muenchow were informed their work – if conducted in partnership with DFO scientists – is also subject to the new guidelines.

Any material prepared for publication must be approved by a DFO Division Manager before being submitted to an external source like a journal.

This document, released by an anonymous DFO insider on the blog Unmuzzled Science, details the new publication procedure:

DFO Communications Advisor Melanie Carkner originally denied any changes had been made to the department's publication policy after journalist Michael Harris originally reported on the story. Yesterday Postmedia's Munro reported Frank Stanek, manager of media relations for DFO, said the department was not prepared to comment on the rules.

Muenchow, in the meantime told Postmedia's Munro he will not be signing the new agreement that threatens his "freedom to speak, publish, educate, learn and share." He is currently working with the University of Delaware and DFO to renegotiate the agreement and today gave this statement to DeSmog Canada: 

"This is a very delicate situation for me to be in at the moment, because the proposed Confidentiality Rules as reported by Margaret Munro in the Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, and other Canadian papers are being negotiated between the University of Delaware and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans as part of a Collaborative Agreement.

As such, for now, I would not want to inject myself any further into a public debate over policy, even if these policies have the potential to impact my work. I think it is in my best (scientific) interest to let the negotiations process play itself out."

Muenchow, like so many other scientists in his shoes will have to be extra cautious from now on in, to ensure his academic freedom escapes Canada intact. 

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.

“We are not muzzling scientists.” – Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister.

I shook my head reading Margaret Munro’s Weekend Vancouver Sun article on freedom of information documents that caught Canada’s Minister of the Environment lying about muzzling scientists.

Kent has repeatedly denied that the government is muzzling scientists. But according to the documents, Kent’s office clearly muzzled Environment Canada researcher David Tarasick, preventing him from speaking to a number of media outlets about an unprecedented hole that appeared in the ozone layer above the Arctic in 2011.

According to Munro, “the documents also say Kent’s office and the Privy Council Office, which reports to the prime minister, decide when and if Environment Canada scientists are allowed to brief the media about anything from wildlife to water quality."

Why would the Minister of the Environment block public discussion of scientific work that may be important for the health and safety of Canadians and their environment?

Shouldn’t a minister of the environment be working to inform the public about environmental threats, encouraging the free flow of scientific knowledge and inviting informed citizens to participate in the decision-making process?

OK, it may be a bit naïve expecting politicians to tell the truth. Most Canadians have an idea who benefits when scientists are muzzled and the free exchange of scientific knowledge about environmental threats is constrained.

The real question, then, is why Minister Kent seems so comfortable lying to Canadians about muzzling scientists when he knows that we know what he is doing?

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.

Today federal scientists from Environment Canada presented research at an international toxicology conference in the U.S. that indicates contaminants from the Alberta tar sands are polluting the landscape on a scale much larger than previously thought.

A team lead by federal scientist Jane Kirk discovered contaminants in lakes as far as 100 kilometers away from tar sands operations. The federal research confirms and expands upon the hotly contested findings of aquatic scientist David Schindler who, in 2010, found pollution from the tar sands accumulating on the landscape up to 50 kilometers away.

"That means the footprint is four times bigger than we found," Schindler told Postmedia News.

Senior scientist Derek Muir, who presented some of the findings at Wednesday's conference, said the contaminated region is "potentially larger than we might have anticipated." The 'legacy' of chemicals in lake sediment gives evidence that tar sands pollution has been traveling long distances for decades. Samples show the build up of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, known to cause cancer in humans and to be toxic to aquatic animals, in 6 remote and undisturbed lakes up to 100 kilometers away from tar sands operations.

The pollutants are "petrogenic" in nature, meaning they are petroleum derived, and have steadily and dramatically increased since the 1970s, showing the contaminant levels "seem to parallel the development of the oilsands industry," Muir said.

After the release of Schindler's groundbreaking research on tar sands pollution in 2010 the Alberta government claimed the contaminants were naturally occurring and posed no risk to aquatic life.

However at today's conference, the annual meeting of the North American Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Kirk discussed the long list of 'priority pollutants' that accumulate in the region's snow. Within 50 kilometers of the tar sands, snowpack contains numerous contaminants including dangerous neurotoxins, such as methyl mercury, that bioaccumulate in food webs. Kirk found priority pollutants in the air were 1.5 to 13 times higher at test sites within 50 kilometers of tar sands refineries, and highest within 10 kilometers.

Abstracts for Kirk, Parrott and Muir's presentations can be found on pages 103 and 104 of the conference programme (pdf).

"We don't really know the fate of the various metals including mercury as they go from snow, to melt water to run-off and then into the aquatic environment," Muir told Postmedia.

The toxicity of melt water from snow falling in the tar sands region was researched by federal scientist Joanne Parrott, who also presented at the conference. Studying snow samples taken in 2011 and 2012 along the Athabasca River, Parrott found that the melt water was toxic to minnow larvae, even when diluted down to 25 percent. "The larval fish don't do very well in that snow at all," she said.

Parrott suggests melt water, once mixed with water from the Athabasca River, will no longer be toxic to minnows.

Snow melt, however, provides a significant amount of water to tributaries where fish hatch in the spring, says Schindler. "My big concern is that slowly because of mortalities at spring melt, that this will erode the fishery, killing off the embryos," he told Postmedia, pointing to the abnormally low numbers of fish in the Muskeg River as a possible occurrence.

Parrott plans to expand her research to consider whether young fish in tributaries that feed the Athabasca River are affected by the pollution.

Schindler's research has already highlighted the increasing incidence of fish deformity in areas downstream of tar sands operations, like Lake Athabasca. "I think what could happen is that the few embryos that manage to survive, deformed as they are, struggle down to Lake Athabasca," he said, adding the fish look "so horrible" the First Nations who depend on them for survival will not eat them, even if they don't have confirmed high levels of contaminants.

"I think that's fair enough, they wouldn't sell in Safeway," Schindler commented.

The scientists' presence at the conference is significant given the Harper government's strict control of scientific communications surrounding the tar sands. Federal scientists were prevented from speaking with the media at the same conference in Boston last year.

An internal document uncovered by Postmedia instructed federal scientists to avoid answering media questions, saying "if scientists are approached for interviews at the conference, the EC communications policy will be followed by referring the journalist to the media relations…phone number. An appropriate spokesperson will then be identified depending on journalist questions."

After Postmedia's Mike De Souza released the internal document last week, Environment Canada made arrangements for the news agency to speak with both Muir and Parrott.

Postmedia's Margaret Munro explains: "Environment Canada earlier this month said scientists were not available to comment on their findings of contamination around the oilsands. The department’s media office arranged this week’s interviews with Muir and Parrott after Postmedia News obtained details of the reports the scientists will present at the U.S. conference on Wednesday."

As DeSmog covered in an earlier post, the Harper government's heavy-handed treatment of federal scientists led to a mass demonstration this summer, where scientists and academics mourned the "Death of Evidence," claiming "Stephen Harper Hates Science." 

The government's strict communications policy is seen by some as an attempt to silence critics voicing science-based opposition to development of the tar sands.

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.